12.6.2003
13:47
Stránka 1
Structural Funds
Society in
Transition:
Rebuilding
Partnership
1
1stst edition
edition
Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech Republic
16
2003
obal16-a.qxd
Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech Republic
Society in Transition: Rebuilding Partnerships
A Textbook of papers from an international conference
in Èeský Krumlov (December 12-13, 2002)
Collected by Marek Jetmar
Prague 2003
This publication is the sole property of the Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech
Republic and may not be used for other purposes without its explicit consent.
Structural Funds No. 16
Society in Transition: Rebuilding Partnership
Edited by:
MRD CR - European Integration and Structural Funds Department
Staromìstské námìstí 6, 110 15 Praha 1
tel.: (+420) 224 861 345
ISBN: 80-239-0814-6
Collected by:
Ing. Marek Jetmar
Printed by:
Metropolis Media, a. s.
This publication is not for sale
Dear Reader,
This is a compilation of documents from the international conference "Society in
Transition: Rebuilding Partnerships" organized by the Ministry for Regional
Development together with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
as part of the LEED (Local Economic and Employment Development) programme.
The conference, which took place in Èeský Krumlov during December 12-13, 2002
under the auspices of Minister for Regional Development Mr. Pavel Nìmec, concluded a
research project focused on the issues of territorial partnership in the Czech Republic.
The project was executed jointly by the Ministry for Regional Development and LEED
OECD. In 2001 a research team headed by Filip De Rynck from Ghent University
completed a number of field surveys in Bohemian and Moravian regions with the aim of
collecting information on the manners, forms, and intensity of creating partnerships at the
local level within the public administration and between government authorities and
private organizations. The result of their work was the subject matter of the conference.
I hope that this compilation, which is the outcome of the said collaboration between the
Ministry for Regional Development and OECD, will provide you with an ample amount
of interesting information and inspiration for your work and that it will be included
among the numerous documents focused on the instruments used in policies of economic
and social cohesion.
Marek Jetmar
Representative of the Czech Republic
in LEED OECD
3
Contents:
Minister’s Speech
Mgr. Pavel Nìmec ............................................................................................................5
Regional Development Policy: First Experiences from Implementation
Ing. arch. Kamila Matoušková,CSc. ..................................................................................7
Micro-regions - a new vision of local development
Charles-Henri Dimaria a Philip Wade .............................................................................15
County and City Development Boards: New Governance Models
for the Enhancement of Local Development Processes in Ireland
Micheál Ó Cinnéide.........................................................................................................23
Current experience of partner cooperation in the Vysoèina region
Ing. Marie Èerná..............................................................................................................31
Partnership in practice: the participation of civic society
Roman Haken ..................................................................................................................33
Challenges for Civic Society Organizations in the Czech Republic
Ivan Malý, Simona Škarabelová ......................................................................................37
Partnership as a Gateway to Managing of Public Affairs
Petr Pirožek, Eliška Novotná...........................................................................................45
The Czech experience viewed from the UK
Mike Geddes....................................................................................................................49
Local governance and partnerships in the OECD
Sylvain Giguére ...............................................................................................................57
Public administration reform
Josef Postránecký ............................................................................................................69
Partnership in the Czech Republic - Are we ready for real partnership?
Ing. Marek Jetmar............................................................................................................75
Local partnerships in the Czech republic
Filip De Rynck.................................................................................................................79
4
Minister's Speech
Pavel Nìmec, Minister for Local Development
Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen
Welcome to the international conference 'Society in Transition: Rebuilding Partnerships',
organized by the Ministry for Local Development in association with the Programme for Local
Economic and Employment Development (LEED) run by the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development.
I am pleased to note that the cooperation between the Czech Republic and the OECD is
developing positively and has been bearing fruit in the long term. Since 1998 when, in the wake
of a change in the division of power, other activities in the field of local economic and employment
development were transferred to the Ministry for Local Development, our cooperation with the
OECD has taken on new dimensions. The Czech Republic's active participation in the LEED
programme enables us to enter into cooperation with the most developed countries in the world
and to help create room for the discussion of various ideas, development concepts, and development
policies in the field of local economic development and employment policy. One of the products
of these activities has been the study entitled 'Society in Transition: Rebuilding Partnerships',
drawn up by OECD experts, which has also lent its name to this conference; the results of the
study will be discussed in detail at this forum.
The issue of partnership, which is the main motto of this conference, is perhaps behind almost
all the action taken by the Czech Government in the past few years in the field of regional
development and the closely related reform of public administration.
I would like to dwell briefly on this issue because a major change in public administration was
a precondition for the adoption of a new concept for regional policy.
Public administration reform is mainly guided by efforts to bring administration closer to the
public, to improve its efficiency, and to ensure widespread participation from non-state entities third-sector organizations, private profit-oriented companies, etc. - in the controlling mechanism
at all stages - conceptual, decision-making, and control.
Special emphasis is placed on reinforcing autonomous branches, where the aim is to entrust
public power primarily to territorial associations of citizens in an attempt to satisfy their natural
right to manage their own affairs. Over the past few years a number of key powers have been
transferred from the State (state institutions) to territorial self-government (at present, in the
framework of the closure of district authorities, tasks are being transferred to municipalities 'with
extended competence', municipalities with an accredited municipal authority, and the newly established administrative regions).
We are witnessing the gradual fulfilment of the role of regions as the powers, material resources,
and human resources are transferred which are required to achieve their basic objective, i.e.
fulfilling their duty to thei citizens in their territory due development through its.
The reforms being implemented have had a significant impact on the structure of those involved
in development at a local and regional level - the closure of territorial state institutions with a general agenda and an emphasis on the nodal function of micro-regional centres - and are forming an
entirely different environment for the emergence of partnerships between individual entities from
public administration, the private sector, and civic society.
I would now like to discuss regional policy.
5
Regional policy, as conceived and practised in the Czech Republic, is distinguished by three
dimensions.
1. The role of the regions, the main and natural task of which is to develop the territory in their care.
2. The State plays the role of coordinator of regional policy - it defines the objectives of
development, the processes and resources used to implement development measures.
The State also bears responsibility for reducing baseless interregional differences stemming
from the structural difficulties of certain areas. Therefore it creates state programmes of regional
development targeted directly at eliminating disparities (especially for the NUTS 2 regions of
Severozapad and Ostravsko).
The third dimension is regional policy contingent on cooperation in transnational groups or
international organizations; the State bears responsibility for implementation.
The role of municipalities in broader conceived spatial development and of decisive indicators
at a local level should not be overlooked either; their development concepts and policies have
much the same basis as those of the regions.
It follows, then, that the existence of three-dimensional regional policy must lead to the creation
of formal (conditioned by legislation) and informal ties between individual institutions of public
administration and, in the broader sense, between individual players in the field of regional
development.
The very idea of regional development, as conceived in the Czech Republic, therefore conceals
the idea of cooperation and partnership.
I would like to mention our preparations for drawing on resources from EU funds.
The Ministry for Local Development is preparing a number of fundamental documents by
means of which it will be possible to make use of contributions from Structural Funds for
regional intervention following the Czech Republic's accession to the EU. In this respect, the
documents being prepared for discussion by the Czech Government include the National
Development Plan, as a conceptual and umbrella document, the Joint Regional Operation Plan, as
an operation programme applicable for all cohesion regions falling under Goal 1, and the
Common Programme Document for Prague.
During the preparation, implementation, and actual realization of the programmes, our constant
basis is and will remain the principle of partnership as grasped and applied in the Member States
of the European Union.
When preparing these documents (including their optimal settings) cooperation was necessary
with representatives of the regions, the regional councils of cohesion regions, and the Association
of Regions.
I am keen to stress our interest, in the framework of the space delimited by Czech legislation
and EU legislation, to delegate to territorial units as broad a base of powers as possible, while
ensuring that acts or measures taken are as effective as possible, i.e. we respect the principle of
subsidiarity.
I would like to bring attention, for example, to the issue of the Joint Regional Operation
Programme, where the national and regional levels intermingle considerably.
The transfer of the most important management tasks - the process of selecting projects - to the
regional councils (NUTS 2), made up of representatives of the regions, or the majority representation
of regional representatives in the programmer's steering committee, are patent proof of this.
The examples I have mentioned clearly indicate the importance of the principle of partnership in
the concept of the Czech Republic's regional development and the essential nature of this principle
when implementing regional development policy.
I would like to close this address by wishing the conference much success.
6
Regional Development Policy:
First Experiences from Implementation
Ing. arch. Kamila Matoušková, CSc.,
Ministry for Regional Development, Staromìstské nám. 6, 110 15 Prague 1,
Czech Republic, Tel.: 224 861 214, E-mail: [email protected]
Background
Since 1989, the Czech Republic has been undergoing a period of important social and
economic changes related to the country's transition from a totalitarian society with central
planning to a democratic system with a market economy. During the first decade, attention
was focused on transforming the most important laws and institutions. Thus, the changes were
first reflected in transformation of the economy, liberalization of market relations, restitution
of property, and privatization. The society and the public administration are much more
complicated, however, and changes cannot be made at such a fast pace. Together with reforms
of the structure and focus of the public administration, democratic principles have been applied
to the regional and local levels, attention has been paid to modernizing the government, and
large enterprises have been completing a restructuring process, often with substantial
difficulties. Amid these changes, the Czech Republic is increasing the speed of preparations
for accession to the European Union. Using the SAPARD Program and various national
programs as an example, this document illustrates the essence of the aforementioned changes.
One of the ways of satisfying people's needs and promoting sustainable growth is
establishing a broad partnership between the state and the public, civil society, nongovernmental nonprofit organizations, and the private sector.
SAPARD
SAPARD is a special preaccession program aimed at developing agriculture and rural
regions. On October 26, 2000, the European Commission approved a strategic program
document titled Plan of Development of Agriculture and Rural Regions of the Czech
Republic for the 2000-2006 Period. On February 5, 2001, the Czech Republic and the
Commission of European Communities signed the Multiannual Financial Agreement and
the Annual Financial Agreement for the Year 2000. The latter defines the amount of EU
financial assistance for the said year. The Annual Financial Agreement for the Year 2001,
which includes special assistance for regions damaged by the August 2002 floods, was
signed on October 30, 2002.
Administrative preparations for execution of the program took two years, including a year
for certification of the SAPARD Agency. The European Commission's decision charging
the Czech Republic with executing the SAPARD Program was issued on April 15, 2002.
The decision has allowed Czech authorities to start implementation of the program, but it is
temporary. The European Commission will reexamine the administrative procedures after
the program is launched and will evaluate the process of assessing individual projects.
7
Two ministries are responsible for execution of the SAPARD Program. The Ministry of
Agriculture has established the SAPARD Agency, a body responsible for execution of the
program. The Ministry for Regional Development is responsible for the selection of projects,
provision of information, and assistance with implementation of projects aimed at development of rural areas. The SAPARD Agency is a department of the Ministry of Agriculture
with a central head office and eight regional branches. The agency is responsible for execution of the program-selecting projects from the agricultural sector, carrying out inspections,
entering into contracts, and making payments. The SAPARD Agency relies on consultations
with external selection committees composed of various officials. Three bodies are responsible for management-the SAPARD Agency, the management authority responsible for the
results of implementation, and the monitoring committee which approves the results of
implementation of the program and its changes.
The first, second, and third (assistance for areas affected by last year's flooding) rounds of
accepting applications for participation in the SAPARD Program took place during April 15May 15, 2002, September 25-November 6, 2002, and November 25-December 13, 2002,
respectively. So far, rural development has attracted the highest interest and number of projects. Municipalities and microregions (established for the measure Renewal and
Development of Rural Municipalities and Infrastructure) from all NUTS 2 regions of the
Czech Republic have submitted projects that exhibit the highest degree of preparation, in part
thanks to the Rural Renewal Program that has existed since 1991. This program was created
immediately after the fall of communism, based on experiences in Austria and Bavaria.
The SAPARD Program in the Czech Republic has three priorities and nine measures, of
which seven have been approved as part of the certification process.
Priority 1:
Increase competitiveness of the agricultural sector and the processing industry
Measure 1.1: Investments into Agricultural Property
Investments into agricultural ventures will help the implementation of acquis communautaire
and contribute to improving hygienic standards and substandard livestock welfare.
Measure 1.2: Improving of the Processing and Marketing of Agricultural and Fishing
Products
Modernization of the processing industry will improve the competitiveness of food products
and contribute to the elimination of a lack of conformity to food safety standards.
Furthermore, it will provide processing enterprises with access to new markets.
Support for marketing will improve the position of primary producers and processing
enterprises on the market thanks to better use of their potential, contributing to higher profitability of the food industry.
Measure 1.3: Improvement of Quality control, Food quality, and Consumer Protection
Higher competitiveness of primary production will help preserve jobs, especially in rural
areas.
Measure 1.4: Land Reclamation and Improvement
Investments into land reclamation and improvement will help resolve ownership problems
and create a fully functioning real estate market.
8
Priority 2:
Sustainable growth in rural areas
Measure 2.1.: Renewal and Development of Rural Municipalities and Infrastructure
a) renewal and development or rural municipalities
b) development of rural infrastructure
Support for preparation and implementation of development strategies of the microregions
with the participation of local people and businesses, including investments into infrastructure,
will eliminate differences in the quality of life between rural and urban areas and improve
conditions for the development of small and medium enterprises in rural regions.
Measure 2.2.: Development and Diversification of Economic Activities and Creation of
Alternative Sources of Revenues
Diversification of activities carried out in rural areas will help decrease unemployment in
rural areas and migration to urban areas.
Measure 2.3.: Methods of Agricultural Production Intended to Protect the Environment and
Preserve the Landscape (this measure was not certified during the first stage)
Support for environment-friendly agricultural methods in protected areas through pilot
projects will help gather experience of preserving and enhancing natural values.
Priority 3:
Conditions for full use of the program
Measure 3.1: Improvement of Vocational Training (this measure was not certified during the
first stage)
Measure 3.2: Technical Assistance
These measures will help create conditions for successful implementation of the program,
provide specialized training to farmers and the rural population, and improve the competitiveness of the agricultural sector and the processing industry.
Principle of partnership in the SAPARD Program
Program partnership
One of the measures included under the SAPARD Program-2.1 Renewal and Development
of Rural Municipalities and Infrastructure-was conceived based on the principles of the EU
LEADER Initiative. Applicants for assistance may be groups of adjacent municipalities,
which have a similar structure or face similar problems, and microregions with a population
size of 800-50,000. Together with an application, microregions (groups of municipalities or
municipalities that are party to an agreement with other municipalities of the microregion)
must submit the development strategy of the microregion and three or more implementation
subprojects. The strategy deals with economic development, unemployment, tourism, trades
and services, social life, environmental protection, education, cultural heritage, historical
monuments, and public areas in municipalities. Microregions must demonstrate that their
strategy was created with the participation of the local population, nonprofit organizations,
and businesses. The strategy should be compiled by a local organization, and the public
administration may represent up to one half of the organization only. The preparatory
9
working group provides a source or local managers, implementing enterprises, and user
organizations. New nonprofit organizations are created, and new private businesses are
established.
The principle of creating voluntary associations of municipalities-microregions-provides
support for the initiatives of municipalities that join forces to deal with common problems.
In the Czech Republic, this approach is highly desirable, as the country has a dispersed structure
of settlements and public administration. There are 6,244 municipalities, including a high
number of small ones. Microregions help regional authorities deal with administrative
matters. In addition, they provide greater stability and competitiveness for rural areas.
Measure 2.2 Development and Diversification of Economic Activities and Creation of
Alternative Sources of Revenues is focused on supporting for small and medium enterprises
conducting business in non-agricultural sectors in rural areas with an emphasis on creating new
employment opportunities. Although seemingly different, the SAPARD Program has a condition
that projects of this type must conform to the development strategy of the given microregion.
Assessment of projects as part of the first round has been completed, and the execution
process is about to start. The Czech Republic has 343 microregions registered under the
SAPARD Program. In the first round, microregions submitted 140 applications with strategies and subprojects. Forty-eight applications were retained. All acceptable applications
involve well-prepared strategies aimed at the development of individual microregions.
Subprojects serve for the implementation of strategic visions and some strategic priorities. In
a like manner, projects targeting the diversification of business activities conform to the
development strategy of an individual microregion or a similar strategic document. The 39
approved business projects will create 447 new employment opportunities. 1,000 new jobs
were created from all three calls.
No measures were taken to influence microregions in the creation of their strategies, as those
depend on the ambitions and aspirations of the local population. Further, since the process of
strategic planning on the part of microregions, municipalities, and regions is only starting,
evaluation methods should not be applied in a strict manner in the assessment of individual
projects. Transformation of territorial planning and central management instruments of
regions into professionally compiled strategies will be a gradual process which will include
preparation of local strategies in microregions with the participation of the local population.
Institutional partnership
The National Monitoring Committee consists of representatives of the public administration, professional organizations, regions, nongovernmental nonprofit organizations, and
mayors of individual municipalities. In the administrative structure of the program, the committee has the broadest decision-making powers. Regions take part in regional monitoring
subcommittees and gradually gain participation in regional selection subcommittees.
Methodological partnership
The interim assessment method applied during the execution stage uses participation and
a joint approach to setting assessment areas, criteria, and indicators. The aim of this approach
is to ensure consensus and reduce the risk of inaccurate subjective assessments.
10
Assessment of program effect value-area of evaluation and policies
A
Outputs
Audit according to rules
an procedures
Operating objectives
B
C
Results
Effects
Monitoring according to
management standards
Specific objectives
Assessment based on needs
of the public and political
objectives
Strategic objectives
The assessment quantifies the program's impact on strategic objectives according to
people's needs and according to political objectives.
To simplify and unify the methodology used by individual countries, the European
Commission sets the scope of general and cross-sectional assessment areas, criteria, and
indicators. This approach is used to obtain data that can be used for the comparison of particular
countries. However, specific assessment areas, criteria, and indicators are determined by the
countries themselves.
Past experience
Experiences gathered so far show that the modest amount of EU funds is burdened by
excessive administrative demands and additional state budget expenditures needed for the
functioning of the administration system. Preparation of projects is often too costly for small
and startup enterprises. For banks, providing loans to such enterprises is an uncertain business.
Both applicants and public servants have to learn new procedures, such as compile economic
data on projects and submit most projects for approval to authorities responsible for
environmental protection. Another new area is awarding public contracts according to EU
regulations. These problems are gradually eliminated as implementation proceeds, and all
parties to the process are learning the new procedures.
Valuable aspects brought by the program include the EU's sophisticated system of assigning
responsibility to government authorities and nongovernmental organizations, distributing
responsibilities among individual departments and officials, and defining internal and external
control aiming to, as much as possible, eliminate subjective decisions, influences, and errors.
of exeptional importance are the procedures used for monitoring the effect of measures and
the progress of financing for regular reports on execution of the SAPARD Program to the
European Commission. Another important and demanding activity is the preliminary, continuing,
and subsequent assessment of the SAPARD Program that provides feedback on the program's
11
outcome and impact for the European Commission and politicians who decide on the allocation
of funds in the subsequent period.
District authorities, which are now being replaced by other government levels, have been
carrying out some expert and verification activities. Newly created regional authorities take
part in monitoring committees, selection committees, and expert activities. Municipalities
are the recipients of assistance and mayors or associations of municipalities participate in
monitoring committees.
Responsibilities that can be delegated to nongovernmental organizations include announcing
rounds of acceptance of applications, receiving and registering applications, and assessing the
acceptability of and determining preferences for projects-that means the selection of
projects from the preparatory stage to the signing of contracts. During the implementation
stage, the government can delegate assistance for the execution and monitoring of the
progress of execution. Activities that cannot be delegated outside the public administration
include entering into contracts, inspection activities, and making payments. The partnership
principle is most advantageous during the preparation of strategies and ensuing projects,
monitoring and approving the results of the program, making changes to the program and to
some methodologies.
RURAL RENEWAL PROGRAM
The Rural Renewal Program is a nation-wide program originally created in 1991. Since
1994, the program has been financed by the state budget. The program involves funding a
large number of projects through relatively low non-investment funds.
During the first stage that ended in 1997, the program concentrated mainly on improving the
condition and appearance of municipalities. During the second stage, the program's focus
shifted to support for local social and economic activities, special-purpose local partnerships,
grouping municipalities into microregions, and rural renewal training. Over a long period of
time, the program has been preparing municipalities and their associations for structural
funds, in particular pre-structural assistance from the SAPARD Program.
As part of the in-progress reform of the public administration, activities formerly in the
jurisdiction of the ministry, such as receiving and assessing applications and providing
assistance to applicants, are being transferred to regional and municipal authorities with
expanded jurisdiction. The state has retained control over such areas as registration of
applications, assuming obligations through decisions and limits, inspection activities, and
making payments. To some extent, inspection activities will be delegated to regional authorities.
As far as these changes are concerned, the partnership principle can be observed at the level
of preparation of projects and cooperation of municipal authorities with their regional
counterparts during the selection of projects. In this regard, it is necessary to mention the
annual Village of the Year contest which is fully organized by the Association for Rural
Renewal, a nongovernmental organization, in cooperation with the public administration.
Future expectations
After the Czech Republic joins the European Union, issues concerning rural development
will continue to be dealt with under the Rural Renewal Program-this applies to individual
12
municipalities and small-scale projects. The SAPARD Program will gradually conclude its
activities in the course of 2003, providing support for the agricultural sector, the processing
industry, rural development in microregions, and small and medium enterprises from
non-agricultural sectors.
The sectorial operating program Development of Rural Regions and Multifunctional
Agriculture, which will be launched in 2004, will mainly focus on the agricultural sector,
land reclamation, cleaning of water sources, infrastructure, and services consumed by
enterprises from the agricultural sector. Also, preparation for the EU initiative LEADER+
is present.
Rural development targeting the renewal of rural municipalities and microregions and
stabilization of the rural space, including the creation of employment opportunities and
preparation of development strategies, will be included in the Joint Regional Operating
Program that will continue the work started under SAPARD, which addresses rural
development. In addition to reviving rural regions, the JROP will include support for local
business activities, development of regional transportation services and communication
technologies, development of local human resources, improvement of environmental
conditions in municipalities and regions, and increasing tourism in rural areas.
As to implementation, this program will have a structure similar to the SAPARD Program
where partnership will play a similar role. The differences will include a broader involvement
of regions that will play a political and administrative role-select projects, prepare contracts,
and participate in the monitoring committee. In addition, they will be among the beneficiaries
receiving assistance, including grant schemes, which they will distribute to the final beneficiaries.
The role of regions will be further defined during the process of completing the program
document and ensuing discussions in the European Commission as well as during
preparations of the program complement and the operating manual. The Joint Regional
Operating Program should be launched at the time the Czech Republic joins the European
Union in 2004.
Summary
Newly established levels of public administration will continue to define the role of
individual government authorities, public servants, and partnerships.
Partnerships are created mainly on the local and regional levels. They are very important
for local associations of municipalities, microregions, and small regions. Partnerships are
established to deal with problems of economic development, unemployment, social
cohesion, quality of life, and environmental protection. The common objective is to improve
management at the local and regional levels by strengthening local self-governments. The
result is the creation of the harmonic and cohesive community of municipalities and regions.
Most important for the public administration is the creation of development strategies for
localities that themselves provide assistance in their implementation. The concept of
creating strategies at the grassroots level with the participation of local communities allows
for the better use of natural and human resources and greater flexibility in responding to the
needs of the local population.
13
14
MICRO-REGIONS - A NEW VISION
OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT
Charles-Henri Dimaria,
Consultant, Territorial Development Service OECD, 15 boulevard de l’amiral BRUIX,
Paris 75775, France, Tel.: +33 (0) 1 45 24 13 59, Fax: +33 (0) 1 45 25 16 68,
E-mail: [email protected]
Philip Wade,
Consultant, Territorial Development Service OECD, 15 boulevard de l’amiral BRUIX,
Paris 75775, France, Tel. (+33 1) 45 24 15 90, E-Mail: [email protected]
Introduction
One of the most striking features of the latest trends in economic development policy in
OECD Member countries has been the attempt to move beyond sectoral objectives and adopt
a broader territorial approach to the initiatives being implemented. This approach is reflected
in the decentralisation of the institutional actors in these policies and the creation of regional
development agencies. Other features of this attempt to find local solutions have been the
abandonment of the use of massive subsidies and the creation of new economic growth poles.
Even though the policies implemented have been the more effective for these changes, the
lack of a sharper focus on geographical locality and modes of governance has somewhat
diluted their impact [see Wilson (1995) for a synopsis of discussions on this issue].
As a result of the decentralisation process, the powers of urban and rural areas alike have
been strengthened. Aware of local needs, these areas have built up co-operation between
municipalities. New areas of governance and economic partnership have accordingly
evolved, and they do not always coincide with the institutional administrative boundaries
used to implement economic development policies [see (OECD 2001a) for the growing
importance of territorial units in sustainable development].
Co-operation between municipalities is a long-standing and very widespread practice:
every country has its partnerships of municipalities. In many OECD Member countries, this
co-operation has been the result of the over-fragmentation of municipal government and of
compulsory amalgamation policies that have frequently met with failure. This has been the
municipalities' technical and financial response to tighter management margins (lack of
resources, training, etc. ). The main reason that one municipality co-operates with others is
so that it can share costs and manage certain services jointly (particularly infrastructure, such
as sewerage mains and municipal waste treatment). Generally, the scope of their co-operative initiatives is clearly defined in legislation. These management partnerships set up for
limited purposes, often defined in legislation, do not concern citizens directly.
At national or regional level, municipalities also form associations. Their main purpose is
to provide assistance and/or training in effective local government to municipal authorities,
particularly the smallest ones, which lack the necessary staff and financial resources, support,
advice and training (for instance, the Wyoming Association of Municipalities, the Ontario
15
Association of Municipalities, etc). They also help to promote and transpose good
practice in this field. Note that, as European integration proceeds, good practice can
include cross-border practices.
Local authorities may also form voluntary groups with the shared goal of improving
their economic and social situation, although such groups have no administrative
powers in their own right. Such partnerships, which have sprung up in many countries
recently, have a broader objective than co-operation between municipalities and reflect
a place-based approach to economic development. The latter is characterised by the
introduction of strategies combining social, economic and environmental objectives,
which the OECD considers crucial for truly effective sustainable growth (OECD 2001b).
Furthermore, they can cut across traditional administrative boundaries. It is these territorial
units, actors in economic development such as the "Pays" in France, that are of interest to us
here. The micro-region of Moravská Tøebová - Jevíèko (MTJ) in the Czech Republic 1 is one
example, but there are more than 200 such associations in the latter country and in Hungary
[OECD 2001c]. Similar examples are found in other countries: Poland, Bulgaria, Slovenia,
Canada, Iceland, Norway, Greece, Australia, etc.
Local authority co-operation versus Micro-regions
Local authority co-operation
Micro-region
Objective
Limited
Joint management of certain
services -- cost sharing
Broad
Sustainable growth
Legal
framework
Generally governed by the law,
the scope of activities for which
partnerships may be formed
is defined in legislation.
Either their formation is not
prohibited, the means, goals and
legal form being defined by
the members themselves.
Or, the procedure and certain
principles are defined in legislation,
but generous scope for initiative is
left to the actors as to the form and
extent of co-operation.
Type
Mode of management
Mode of Governance
Source: OECD.
In the process of decentralising regional development policies in OECD member
countries, micro-regions tend to become the interface through which policies will be
implemented. The administrative and geographical territorial units which were once
the basis for policy implementation are gradually being superseded by areas that are
defined by local social realities. Local authorities thus increasingly tend to take the initiative
in local development.
1. The OECD's territorial review of this micro-region was presented in January 2002 (see annex).
16
In any country, these territorial units share certain similarities
- These associations serve common interests. In other words, municipalities co-operate
with each other because they see that they cannot resolve their social and economic problems
on their own and there are no other structures that are going to take the initiative and solve
their problems for them. This is a "bottom-up" response to achieving sustainable growth, one
that helps build up the region's stock of social capital [see definition in OECD (2001d)].
- The territorial composition of micro-regions does not always coincide with administrative
boundaries, functional regions or labour market areas [a point to note is that the French law
of 12 July 1999 states that co-operative ventures must not be based on administrative
divisions (i.e. départements) and may encompass a number of administrative units]. These
micro-regions tend rather to form around a lead municipality and be based on the various
members' strong sense of a shared history (common destiny).
- A substantial share of their activities currently relates to tourism and ecology. For
instance, in European countries (EU member states or otherwise), they often refer to Agenda
21 criteria. There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, the environmental heritage of a
region, what makes the quality of life of an area, can be directly evaluated by its citizens,
while equally important issues such as attracting businesses or managing public services
remain obscure to the majority of them. Secondly, the environment is a unifying issue: the
initial objective of some of these associations was municipal and agricultural waste management, leading naturally into the area of ecosystem conservation.
- Although these associations generally have only standard articles of association that do
not specifically state what actions are to be taken or what problems they will address, all of
them are prefaced by the statement that their ultimate objective is sustainable growth. This
is an important point because it is rarely a stated objective of other types of municipality
associations or one of the statutory responsibilities of municipalities. This is why the sparse
literature on this subject speaks of Local Economic Development (LED) initiatives,
Community Based Development, or as pointed out at the January 2002 meeting of the
Committee on Territorial Development Policy, of "Place-Based Economic Policy".
Nevertheless, there are profound differences too
- Different situations and differences in social and economic performance. Some of these
associations group around a lead municipality or municipalities that are in serious difficulties.
What is more, some of them may also be inaccessible. In contrast, the more prosperous
municipalities may form an association in order to be more effective (particularly for tourism
initiatives, to avoid duplicate spending and utilise synergies). Lastly, some micro-regions are
having difficulties taking off while others are making headway.
- Differences in territorial structures: urban, rural or intermediate areas, border regions or
otherwise, or even cross-border areas (e.g. between Croatia and Hungary, and specific
"Euro-regions"), etc. This said, it seems that the majority are "rural-urban" areas (association
of an urban area and rural areas). Often, the micro-region develops around one or two main
towns and takes in small neighbouring municipalities.
- Lastly, differences in size: from just a few municipalities (e.g. in Slovenia, an association
of four municipalities in the micro-region of Karst) to several dozen or more. Similarly, the
17
size of the area and population covered vary enormously. Then there is the fact that in some
countries a municipality may belong to several micro-regions (as is the case in the Czech
Republic), while in others they may be prohibited from belonging to more than one such
association (in France, for instance).
- These associations may be set up under differing legislative frameworks. There are three
typical approaches:
1. In some countries these associations are encouraged (proactive government) through a
system of subsidies and an accompanying legislative framework. This is the case in France.
2. In others, they are not prohibited, but the legislation is silent on their formation or the
scope of their activities (non-proactive government). This is the situation most frequently
encountered.
3. With rare exceptions, they are discouraged. Denmark is a case in point. There, the law
states that associations formed to pursue such an objective and on such a scale would
simply compete with existing regional structures.
- Differences in funding methods: subsidies, voluntary contributions by member
municipalities, tax sharing. One example of funding through tax sharing is in France,
where associations of municipalities collect business taxes jointly, so that members of the
association will not be competing with each other to attract businesses into their own area.
What are the preliminary lessons to be learned from the review of the Moravská
Tøebová - Jevíèko micro-region?
- These micro-regions are a grassroots response by the end-users as well as the actors of
sustainable growth. However their individual initiatives put together can scarcely be expected to resolve all of a country's problems, and some government attention and supervision
could be warranted. The performance of the individual micro-regions will not necessarily
add up to optimal conditions countrywide (positive and negative externalities, effect of competition between regions, widening gaps, etc. ).
- The micro-region did not seem to have a clear grasp of its strengths and weaknesses. The
OECD study will in fact serve as a model for other micro-regions in the Czech Republic, so
that they can take stock of their own situations, as requested by the Ministry for Regional
Development.
- In all of the sectors concerned (agriculture, labour market, SMEs, tourism, etc. ) full and
clear information on the development tools available to micro-regions (including European
aid) was clearly lacking.
- Public information and participation/consultation on the definition of objectives and on
their implementation is still limited.
- The budgetary and human resources available to associations of municipalities are
increasing, but are still limited compared with the resources of most municipalities.
- While local transport problems were cited as one of the main obstacles to solving the
unemployment problem in rural areas, MTJ has an improved system set up by a partnership
between the district, the municipal authorities, the transport company and local businesses.
Good practices are available in the micro-region.
- The report proposes a number of general recommendations applicable at national level
and some more specifically geared to the micro-region. The suggested guidelines for local
economic policies cover both these aspects (see annex).
18
Why undertake further studies on micro-regions?
1. Given that micro-regions are local, independent of national government and a grassroots
response, the practice is likely to spread throughout OECD countries. With only a few
exceptions, the law in European countries does not prohibit the creation of micro-regions
and in some cases encourages them.
2. These are local initiatives by both actors in and beneficiaries of sustainable growth who
are involved at one stage or another in implementing regional development policies. It is
important to study the exact role that these associations play and to propose a framework
for maximising their initiatives particularly as partners of the regions.
3. A compendium classifying good practices that can be adapted by other regions would be
useful as a benchmark for OECD member countries and could provide a useful reference
for future regional and national reviews.
4. Neither the World Bank nor the International Monetary Fund is proposing to conduct
studies on micro-regions, nor are any academic studies planned. To date, studies have
been based only on administrative units (Municipalities, Districts, Regions, etc.).
However, some partnerships between pairs of municipalities have been studied. This
leaves a gap in studies on regional development policies and the actors involved that
warrants further work.
These four comments point to a single working objective: the study of the micro-region
as a form of governance to foster the development of rural areas, but also of intermediate
areas.
What topics might lead to a comparative study?
After a series of territorial reviews, an overview of the lessons learned can be issued as a
one-off document. This is why every review ought to follow a standard outline, even though
countries differ. Among the principal topics that we might focus on are:
5. Governance (see territorial review of MTJ), for instance the charters, legislation and/or
structures that governments could put in place in order to promote or support these
initiatives. The analysis of forms of civic society participation in economic and social
development projects enters into this field.
6. Finance for these territorial units: by their own tax revenues, contributions or subsidies.
7. Local partnerships: in the transport sector, the labour market, the education sector, and
with firms to foster sustainable growth. Particularly sectoral interactions.
8. Ways to strengthen their role in the design and implementation of sustainable development
policy, which raises the issue of the human resources available to them (staff, level of
qualifications).
9. Policies to develop the amenities of each micro-region to attract direct foreign and domestic
investment. This could lead to a discussion of problems with regional competition and
disparities and the action governments should take to mitigate them could be addressed.
10. The absence or existence of business clusters or local productive systems. The need
would be to analyse the historic, social, territorial and legal factors that explain the
clustering process.
19
11. One topic that is equally important, but difficult to address, is the optimum size of these
territorial units and how to match them with labour market areas and functional areas.
For instance, in France the choice of the boundary of the "Pays" and its size in economic
terms is one of the issues being debated locally in the course of establishing such units. In
the case of MTJ, the report proposes two partnerships between economic actors in the
micro-region and training centres outside the area.
For each of these topics a comparative study of good practice could be instructive and
would serve to define "Place-Based Policies". Furthermore, this could serve as the title of
a one-off document on completion of the studies. All of these issues are perfectly consistent
with the original activities and experience accumulated by all the units of the Territorial
Development Service.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
OCDE (2001a),
OECD Territorial Outlook, OECD, Paris.
OCDE (2001b),
Sustainable Development, Critical Issues, OECD, Paris.
OCDE (2001c),
OECD Territorial Reviews, Hungary, OECD, Paris.
OCDE (2001d),
The Well-Being of Nations: The Role of Human and Social Capital, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2002),
Review on the development of rural regions, local development issues regional and
national policy making : Moravska Trebova - Jevicko micro - region territorial review,
OECD, Paris.
Wilson, P. A. (1995),
'Embracing locality in local economic development' in Urban Studies, Vol 32, N 4-5,
pp 645-658.
20
APPENDIX
SUMMARY OF MORAVSKÁ TØEBOVÁ - JEVÍÈKO
AND THE ISSUES OF THE TERRITORIAL REVIEW
The Ministry of Regional Development and the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of
the Czech Republic have requested that the Territorial Development Service (TDS) of the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development carry out a territorial review of
the micro-region of Moravská Tøebová-Jevíèko (MTJ). This area is situated in the Svitavy
District (Pardubice Region), approximately 200 kilometres east of Prague. The micro-region
comprises 33 municipalities and close to 28,000 inhabitants in a territory of slightly more
than 400 sq.kms, with a population density (67) that is one of the lowest in the country. The
main economic indicators characterise the micro-region as an area with an agricultural sector
that remains more important than in many other parts of the Czech Republic and a
declining industrial base, still mostly represented by traditional sectors such as textiles.
The unemployment rate is higher than national and regional averages (12.3% at the end of
2001) but beneath that of structurally weak heavy industry regions. The SME sector is little
developed.
The territorial review of Moravská Tøebová - Jevíèko has been accomplished as an analysis
of a micro-region chosen as an example among around 200 such voluntary groupings of
municipalities in the Czech Republic, so as to identify issues, illustrate challenges and put
forward recommendations to promote the economic and social well-being of these small
territories. In requesting that the OECD proceed with such a report, Czech authorities are
fully aware of important world-wide trends emphasing the emergence of such associations
of municipalities, often transcending traditional administrative limits, to encompass communities
with a view to pursue common development strategies.
In the Czech Republic, the creation of micro-regions, as associations of communes, first
started under the aegis of the 1992 municipal law which did not specifically mention or take
into account this category of groupings. Micro-regions, diverse in size and goals pursued, thus
appeared. The new Act on Municipalities, effective since November 2000, introduced specific
rules and regulations for the creation of associations of municipalities concerning their
functioning and spheres of co-operation but these are not necessarily based on considerations
linked to territory. The law determines objectives in very general terms: membership is
authorised for municipalities "for the purpose of protecting and promoting their common
interests". With such a wide definition, the scope and depth of co-operation between
municipalities having founded an association at the level of a micro-region is pretty much left
to the initiative of its members. The creation of micro-regions by municipalities in a given area
responds to the need for common approaches and solutions to issues that cannot be devised
without co-operation between communes. This is the case not only for basic infrastructure and
spatial planning, but also for new areas like tourism.
In the case of the Czech Republic, the creation of micro-regions, encouraged by the national
government, is taking place within the context of major changes relating primarily to EU
21
accession. An important regional reform, which will encompass the disappearance of
districts following the creation of regions at the NUTS II and III 2 levels, is presently under
way. In parallel to this, the state government is transferring certain responsibilities not only
to the new regions, but also to a select number of large and medium size municipalities
designated to ensure services in a wider area. This last category of transfers seeks to remedy
municipal fragmentation: there are around 6,200 communes in the country and although
those with less than 200 inhabitants only comprise 2% of the population, they represent 27%
of the total number of communities.
The key issues under consideration in this territorial review are thus the following:
- Under what conditions can a voluntary grouping of municipalities of this type carry out
a comprehensive development strategy successfully?
- What economic and spatial strategies based on specific local assets are likely to increase
employment and investment opportunities in the micro-region?
- What are, particularly in terms of governance, the pre-requisites for efficient co-operation
between its members, with civic society, the private sector as well as with national and
regional authorities?
- Which measures rest more specifically on the regional and local level and which reforms
at the national level would facilitate such a process in different micro-regions?
- How can the regional reform now being implemented in the Czech Republic as one of the
steps towards EU accession contribute to a balanced development of each region's territory?
- Which strategies and best practices could be considered as replicable in other parts of the
Czech Republic?
2. NUTS: "Nomenclature des Unités Territoriales Statistiques" (Nomenclature of Statistical Territorial
Units). NUTS 1 corresponds to country level, NUTS II and III correspond to the highest sub-national
territorial units. The NUTS II level is that of EU regional policy.
22
County and City Development Boards:
New Governance Models for the Enhancement
of Local Development Processes in Ireland
Michael Ó Cinneide,
National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland, Tel.: 35391524411, Fax: 35391750587
Rationale for County Development Boards
An acute absence of co-ordination in the formulation of objectives and strategies and in the
delivery of services at local level was the primary reason for the reorganisation of local government leading to the recent establishment of County and City Development Boards
(CDB's) in Ireland. Three parallel systems were operating more or less independently of one
another at local level. Many government departments and agencies of central government,
although operating from regional and local offices, were centrally directed and implemented
national programmes that were seldom adapted to local conditions and priorities. The second
strand involves the system of local government and is characterised by a limited range of
statutory functions by comparison with those prevailing in other countries of the European
Union. Local authorities are primarily involved in the provision of local infrastructures and
in the regulation of physical development. Traditionally, they have not had a significant
pro-active role in relation to economic development and, with the notable exception of the
provision of social housing, they also have had only limited involvement in the design and
delivery of social programmes. It was against this background of public administration that
a network of publicly-funded local development bodies, embodying principles of partnership
and participation, were established largely in the context of EU Structural Fund programmes,
to deliver on specific socio-economic objectives. While there was a degree of central direction involved in the administration of these partnership structures, they operated essentially
as bottom-up local development agencies outside of the formal system of government.
The major problem with these parallel structures when viewed as a whole was the weakness
of the linkages between them (Interdepartmental Task Force, 1998). The three different systems
were operating more or less independently of one another. Several development plans were
formulated with respect to the same local area, each corresponding with the special remit of
the responsible body, but with little or no overall co-ordination between them. There was no
arching vision of how the economic and social life in each locality was to develop. Instead
the proliferation of plans, with obvious potential for conflicting objectives and strategies,
created a situation where various key local actors were more inclined to steer clear of one
another than to co-operate with each other.
This problem could only be addressed by adopting a holistic approach to development at
local level. A precedent was already in existence at national level for a partnership approach
to planning that included the public and private sector as well as community and voluntary
representatives. The significant contribution that the national social partnership approach
was perceived to have made to the unprecedented rates of growth and development that were
23
achieved in Ireland throughout the 1990's, represented a strong case for the adoption of a
similar approach at local level. The initial response was to set up the aforementioned local
area-based partnerships, largely independent of government. However, the need for a shared
vision amongst key local actors, the articulation of an agreed integrated local development
strategy, and the coherent allocation of responsibilities amongst the relevant public actors
was soon to be regarded as critical to a successful programme of local development. It was
to address these challenges that County/City Development Boards (CDB's) were first
established in Ireland in 2000 and given statutory status through the Local Government Act,
2001.
Basic Principles
It was decided from the beginning that the new model should be underpinned by certain
principles of local governance that would maximise efficiency, effectiveness and equity.
Above all, the new model would have to be constructed along partnership lines. Tripartite
arrangements that would allow local communities and the social partners to work with the
state sector in the delivery of local services were considered to be of paramount importance.
Voluntary effort was recognised as making a vital contribution to local development and the
new model is intended to accommodate and sustain this practice.
The new model is to provide an opportunity for local communities to be centrally
involved in shaping decisions relating to them. This principle is to be universally applied
but it is recognised that special interventions and arrangements need to be made to ensure
its practical operation to good effect amongst communities with a high level of disadvantage.
The processes of participation in local decision-making by those who felt marginalised in
society are regarded as important in themselves. Hence, there is a strong emphasis on social
inclusion and particularly so in the case of sectors of the population whose influence on decision-making, hitherto, has not been very significant.
The new model is alsodesigned to draw on the democratic legitimacy of local government
by centrally involving locally-elected representatives in the new structures and by arranging
for strong links between them and the local authorities. Similarly, local government, as well
as being representative, is to become more participative than before, and is to be conducted
in a manner geared to energising local communities and encouraging them to accept more
responsibility for their own well-being. Further principles relate to processes that are
intended to be flexible, performance driven, and operating on value for money criteria.
Transparency and accountability in all transactions involving the CDB's also are regarded as
essential. Finally, CDB'S are to pursue policies and strategies that are consistent with
sustainable development (Interdepartmental Task Force, 2000).
Structure of County and City Development Boards
The CDB's as established operate on the partnership principle with membership drawn
from local government itself, local development organisations, local representation of state
agencies and from the social partners. Total membership is typically of the order of 25, of
which seven are from local government, six from local development agencies, seven from
state agencies and five from the ranks of the social partners. The local government nominees
24
comprise elected representatives in charge of key offices such as mayor, chairs of strategic
policy committees and representatives of town councils as well as the county/city manager.
The local government representatives elect the chair of the CDB from amongst their ranks.
Local development representatives are drawn from county/city enterprise boards and
local area based partnerships such as those supported through European Union LEADER
initiatives. State agencies with representation on the CDB's include those with development
briefs relating to key sectors of the local economy, such as agriculture, industry and tourism,
as well as national training agencies, regional development authorities, and regional or local
health and education boards. The social partners on the CDB'S are representative of employers and business organisations, agricultural and farming organisations, trade unions and community and voluntary organisations.
The CDB's are supported by office of Director of Community and Enterprise in each county/city council. The Director is a member of the local authority's senior management and
works under the general control and supervision of the county/city manager. In relation to the
discharge of his/her duties to the CDB, the Director reports as required to the CDB. All
directors were given practical training relating to the discharge of their duties shortly after
their appointment. The office of Director of Community and Enterprise is supported in each
local authority by a small secretariat comprised mainly of staff with skills pertinent to strategic
planning and management of local development (Interdepartmental Task Force, 2000).
Functions and Working Arrangements of County Development Boards
The main functions of the CDB's are to: (a) work towards and formulate an agreed
county/city strategy for economic, social and cultural development, (b) develop a vision at
local level to encompass the various local and sectoral plans, (c) provide the focus for
co-operation on a continuing basis at county/city level in the work of the various agencies,
promote co-ordination and avoid overlap at this level, and (d) seek to maximise the
effectiveness of spending on programmes and projects at local level by bringing together the
various interests in this way. The preparation of an integrated strategy is designed to provide
the broad framework that ensures policies and programmes of key actors accord with one
another. Having prepared agreed strategies the CDB's then actively facilitate their
implementation and seek to promote well co-ordinated responses to development challenges
from the relevant bodies. They have also developed a system of monitoring and evaluating
progress in translating the strategies into reality (Interdepartmental Task Force, 1999). In
summary, CDB's generally promote mechanisms and processes leading to co-ordinated and
integrated approaches to development at local level
The main focus of CDB's is on preparing and ensuring the implementation of integrated
county/city strategies. Each strategy is intended to embrace the full spectrum of policies
relating to the economic, social and cultural development of the county/city. Extensive
consultation with all relevant sectors and interests is regarded as of paramount importance in
the preparation and implementation of these strategies. The consultation process is not treated
as a single step in the planning process, but as something that is an integral part of the entire
process, extending from an initial audit of the current situation, through an analysis of
strengths and weaknesses, development of vision, goals and objectives, identification of
options, priorities and strategies, to the establishment of targets and the monitoring and
25
evaluation of results. Every effort is made to ensure that the consultation process is as wide
and meaningful as possible and special attention is devoted to the empowerment and involvement of marginalised and other less influential groups in society.
To accommodate this process, the setting up of appropriate consultative mechanisms is a
requirement of all CDB's although each CDB is free to select appropriate approaches, including information campaigns, workshops, seminars, conferences, etc. These mechanisms must
provide for inputs and commitment from state bodies and other public sector agencies as well
as from the social partners and from community representatives. Targeted capacity-building
projects represent a special option to provide for the meaningful participation of marginalised
groups. The recognition of the distinctiveness of each county/city is stressed, as is the need
to adapt policies and programmes to local needs and development potentials. This may
require specific action plans for particular areas within a county or city and in developing
these, it is important that the communities concerned are afforded every opportunity to exert
real influence in their determination.
The Example of Clare County Development Board
The manner in which CDB's fulfil their functions may be illustrated by the example
of Clare CDB. County Clare is situated along the western seaboard of Ireland. It had a
population of 103,333 in 2002. The county forms part of the Mid-West Region of Ireland.
Shannon Airport is located within the county and the Shannon industrial zone is the main
engine of economic growth and is a major factor in the increase of almost 10% in the
population of the county during the intercensal period 1996-2002. The zone is heavily reliant
on foreign investment. Most of the industries are relatively modern and belong to recently
expanding sectors such as electronics, aerospace and information technology. However,
these industries are vulnerable to withdrawal of investment in the face of increasing international competition for mobile investment and the prevailing sluggish performance of the
global economy. The county has a large rural population that traditionally has been reliant on
agriculture, but because of the continuing contraction of this sector, the rural population of
the county is declining, despite sustained efforts to diversify the rural economy, through the
promotion of new economic activities such as forestry and rural tourism.
Clare County Development Board was established in 2000 and was immediately charged
with the responsibility of formulating an agreed integrated strategy for the cultural, economic
and social development of the county for the 10-year period to 2012. The composition of the
28 member Board includes representation from the community and voluntary sector (2),
social partners (3), state agencies (9), local development sector (6), and local government (8).
As such, it brings together for the first time at the county level the leading state agencies,
representatives of the social partners, elected members of the local authority and representatives
of community and voluntary groups. The operating arrangements that it adopted involved the
establishment of working groups to address six key sectors and policy areas that emerged
from a process of initial consultation and analysis by the Board (Figure 1). Membership of
the groups is drawn from Board members and from organisations with specific involvement
in these areas, as well as from people with special interest and expertise in these areas. The
broad areas covered by these working groups provide a comprehensive framework within
26
which the priority issues facing Clare may be assessed. The working groups provide the main
conduit through which the Board is appraised of the main concerns of the resident population, the development potential and priorities that are perceived to exist within the county and
the actions that are required and of whom in order that priority objectives are attained.
Community
and Voluntary
Sector
Social
Partners
State
Agencies
Local
Development
Local
Government
Conferences
Clarc
Community
Forum
County Development
Board
Community
and Voluntary
Groups
Integrated
Strategy
Six working groups
Six consultation groups
Agriouture the Rural
Economy and
Natural Resources
Economic Development
Innovation and
Skils Capacity
Health and
Social Service
Tourism, Culture
and Heritage
Equality, Poverty
Reduction and Community
Development
Infrastructure, Planing,
Spatial Development
and the Enviromment
Figure 1. Working arrangements of Clare County Development Board (Source: Clare County
Development Board, 2002).
The individual working groups have deployed a variety of methods in engaging the wider
population in the planning process and in giving them a sense of ownership of the evolving
plan. These included information campaigns conducted through such media as local press
and radio, meetings, consultation days, seminars and conferences on topics germane to
development issues within the county. Although the consultation process has worked well
and yielded generally satisfactory results, a number of problems have been identified with
this on-going process: (a) many people are preoccupied with parochial issues to the detriment
of the bigger picture relating to the whole county, (b) some community representatives
have not been at ease at meetings with professionals who are in a position to exert greater
influence on proceedings by virtue of their position, status and direct access to pertinent
information, (c) there is an element of cynicism and frustration arising from previously
27
broken promises to be detected amongst some of those attending consultation meetings, and
(d) consultation overload is being reported, particularly so because of a general decline in
voluntary effort, with the result that very often it is only the same small number of people
that are available to serve on the relatively numerous consultative committees.
The working groups report regularly to plenary meetings of the CDB that are held every
two months. A major milestone arising from this process was reached in 2002 with the
publication of an integrated development strategy for the county for the period to 2012. The
strategy provides a vision of Clare into the future, it identifies short-term and long-term
objectives that are to be met within the timeframe of the plan, it identifies the lead agencies
responsible for meeting each objective, and it charts the changes that will materialise in Clare
upon attaining these objectives. As well as providing strategic direction to the development
of the county, the integrated development plan includes detailed action programmes with a
time span of two to three years. It is envisaged that the 10-year vision and overarching goals
with supporting objectives will be met through a rolling series of short-term action plans of
this nature (Clare County Development Board, 2002).
Clare CDB also has statutory responsibility for the implementation of the plan. However,
it has no direct role in this regard and has no budget to initiate development projects of its
own, but depends on all stakeholders to fulfil the commitments they have made in the
course of the preparation of the strategy. The primary role of the CDB is one of monitoring
and co-ordinating implementation and generally seeking to ensure that the goals and objectives of the strategy are attained in good time. The working groups, that were instrumental
in the formulation of the plan in the first instance, have been reconstituted by the Board as
implementation groups to assist it in reviewing progress, identifying factors affecting delivery
of agreed actions and outputs, promoting measures that address blockages to successful
implementation, proofing policies and programmes against national guidelines, and generally
monitoring and evaluating outcomes in their domains of responsibility. The implementation
groups report to the CDB on a regular basis.
Clare CDB prepares an annual report that provides an overall assessment of progress in
implementing the strategy and its cultural, social and economic impacts. The report is
informed by the reports of its implementation groups and by a programme of consultation
and research that is to be an integral part of its evaluation process. The Board is anxious to
determine the extent to which the co-ordinated activities of the various stakeholders as
agreed in the strategy is leading to an improved quality of life for all the people of the county.
The Board proposes to publish socio-economic profiles of the county on a regular basis, as
well as sectoral specific reports on an occasional basis, as a means of monitoring and assessing
progress and disseminating information to stakeholders and to the public at large.
Conclusion
The recent establishment of CDB's in counties and large cities throughout Ireland represents a major thrust toward better local government in Ireland. Prior to their establishment
no mechanism existed at the local level to systematically identify all the priority needs and
aspirations of the communities and to arrange for an integrated comprehensive and coordinated approach to their solution. CDB's provide a structure at the local level to bring key
28
stakeholders together in the pursuit of common goals and in a manner that promotes
cost-effectiveness and efficiency. They also represent an effort to promote a system of
government at local level that is inclusive and participative as well as transparent and
democratic. Improved governance is achieved through strong emphasis on consultation of all
stakeholders and on the inclusion of marginalised and traditionally under-represented voices
in the preparation and implementation of integrated strategies that are designed to shape the
development paths in each county and city. It is felt that the meaningful involvement of all
key stakeholders in this process has led to the formulation of value-based strategies to which
the communities subscribe and that this sense of community ownership of the strategies has
generated considerable momentum in support of turning them into reality and bringing about
the visions to which they aspire.
It is too early yet to assess how well this imaginative initiative works in practice. Although
the CDB's have statutory authority with which to pursue the implementation of the strategies,
much still depends on the goodwill and co-operation of various stakeholders, who are
required to proof their own existing sectoral strategies and make whatever adjustments are
required to ensure that their policies and programmes accord with, and make the optimum
contribution to the realisation of the goals and objectives of the integrated area-based strategy
for each county and city. Practical difficulties, such as increased budgetary implications
associated with required adjustments to pre-existing plans, are very likely to arise, and unless
these are addressed in some systematic way, they may well represent major or indeed
insurmountable obstacles to the full implementation of the integrated strategies.
Furthermore, it is not uncommon for public bodies and other agencies to adopt a guarded
approach to any initiative that may be construed as limiting their freedom to act independently
(Ó Cinnéide and Keane, 1990). This leads to an inherent danger that their participation in
what is essentialy a partnership process may be less than enthusiastic. On the other hand, each
stakeholder will realise that the synergistic effects of co-operative endeavour are likely to
lead to greater gains than would be achieved through largely uncoordinated actions. This is
the central reason for the establishment of CDB's in the first instance. In the final analysis,
the outcome in each county and city is likely to depend greatly on the sensitivity and
dexterity with which staff in the offices of the Directors of Community and Enterprise
manage the process of getting a multiplicity of actors, with their own missions and agendas,
to work together with a team spirit for the common good.
References
Clare County Development Board, 2002. Shaping the Future: Integrated Strategy for the
Social, Economic and Cultural Development of County Clare, Ennis: Clare County
Development Board, 117 pp.
Interdepartmental Task Force, 1998. Report of the Task Force on the Integration of Local
Government and Local Development Systems, Dublin: Department of the Environment
and Local Government, 25 pp.
Interdepartmental Task Force, 1999. Preparing the Ground: Guidelines for the Progress from
Strategy Groups to County/City Development Boards, Dublin: Department of the
Environment and Local Government, 51pp.
29
Interdepartmental Task Force, 2000. A Shared Vision for County/City Development Boards:
Guidelines on the CDB Strategies for Economic, Social and Cultural Development,
Dublin: Department of the Environment and Local Government, 83 pp.
Ó Cinnéide, Micheál S. and Keane, Michael J., 1990. Applying Strategic Planning to Local
Economic Development: the Case of the Connemara Gaeltacht, Ireland, Town Planning
Review, 61(4), 475-486.
30
Current experience of partner
cooperation in the Vysoèina region
Marie Èerná,
Vice-president Vysoèina region, Žižkova 57, 587 33 Jihlava, Czech Republic
Tel: 56 46 02 141, Fax: 56 46 02 420
After the regions were introduced in the Czech Republic on 1 December 2001, a new
opportunity for cooperation between democratic local governments and partners in the
territory, which leads to targeted and effective, general development of regions, emerged.
In the following contribution I would like to outline briefly the current experience of
partner cooperation in the development of the Vysoèina region.
¹
The first pilot project involved work focused on creating and updating the basic development
document - the Program regional development. 14 work teams, consisting of almost three
hundred members, collaborated on the elaboration of this document. They represented
partners specialised in economic, non-profit-making and other issues, who actively helped
in the preparation of the document, which was very significant for the region. Every
resident of the region could express his/her opinion and express comments by means of
www pages.
¹
Last autumn the function of the coordinator of the non-profit making organisations in the
region was established in the department for regional development. The coordinator has
almost complete NGO database of the Vysoèina region, relating to various fields and
spheres of activities and he provides, both horizontally and vertically, a lot of information
that is useful for their activities (contacts, good examples, sources of financial means …)
¹
In the spring of 2002 the local council established a development fund - the Vysoèina Fund
- as a financial tool for the development of the region. The financial means are allocated
transparently through grant programs based on the projects, submitted by non-profit-making
organisations, municipalities, schools and entrepreneurs. It is the Program for regional
development and discussions with partners on the regional needs that form the basis for
creating such programs. A total of CZK 81.6 m. was allocated to the Fund for this year. For
example the region contributed CZK 30 m. to the first fourteen programs and 439 projects
were or have been implemented.
¹
At the moment close cooperation with all partners in the region seems very important,
predominantly in the preparation of the project for the utilisation of EU statutory funds,
where the region will play an important role in conjunction with the publication, initiation
and coordination of the project.
¹
Currently the share of the region in the establishment of the Vysoèina Regional
Development Agency is being discussed with the union of towns and villages and union of
chambers of commerce on the partnership principle.
¹
The establishment of a partner advisory body in the region (preliminary called the
Regional economic council) is being negotiated where various interest groups, such as
31
municipalities, entrepreneurs, non-profit-making organisations, farmers, trade unions,
employment unions, should be represented. The establishment of professional groups
within this advisory body is considered, which should work within the priority axes of
the National Development Plan (for example a Council for the Development of Human
Resources has been formed in such a manner) while using the principle of partnership as
well.
¹
Our region pays great attention to cooperation with municipalities - its closest partners.
Thematic meetings with the mayors of all municipalities in the region are held twice a year
where we inform each other on topical issues. There is very close cooperation with the
mayors of accredited municipalities - predominantly newly-established municipalities,
possessing so-called extended competence.
¹
The basic approach to successful cooperation is openness and transparency - all documents,
discussed in the regional bodies (council, commissions and committees) are published in full
on the regional www pages even before they are discussed, as well as the minutes of
meetings.
¹
In conclusion - partner cooperation is a rather arduous and time-consuming process in
opinion of some people, but in view of the long-term sustainable development of the region
it is rewarding.
32
Partnership in practice:
the participation of civic society
Obstacles to the participation of civic society
as seen by non-governmental organizations
Roman Haken,
Executive Director, Centre for Community Work (CPKP), Palackeho 30,
750 02 Prerov, Czech Republic,
Telephone/fax: 581 219 555, Mobile telephone: 777 793 711, www.cpkp.cz
Partnership in regional development
The social and economic partners include public administration, the business sector and
the non-governmental sector. Non-governmental organizations are characterized by their
corporal personality: civic associations, public utility companies, foundations, endowment
funds, church organizations. A qualified estimate of the number of these organizations in
the Czech Republic exceeds 50,000. Representatives of non-governmental organizations
traditionally participate in decision-making processes at town and community level through
membership of community council commissions and committees. These political bodies
usually admit new members after prior nomination by a political party. A more important
role in the participation of NGOs in the preparation of programming documents for the
accession of the Czech Republic to the EU was played by the principle of partnership. The
first partnershuips at the level of NUTS II and NUTS III with the participation of representatives
of NGOs appeared after 1998. A certain part was played here by Government Council for
Non-Governmental Organizations. It is a consulting body dealing with problems of the nonprofit sector. Its key tasks are:
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
it initiates and evaluates conception and implementation documents for Government
decisions in support of (NGOs),
it coordinates co-operation between central administration authorities and district councils
in support of NGOs, including subsidies from public funds,
it analyzes and publishes information on the position of NGOs in the European Union,
in co-operation with ministries, NGOs, and other institutions it ensures that information on
NGOs is accessible and available to the public, as well as state policy measures; it co-operates
in the development and operation of the publicly accessible information system on NGOs,
set up as part of the CEDR information system run by the Ministry of Finance,
it monitors and informs the Government of the use of funds in the Foundation Investment
Fund category.
Address: Cabinet office of the Czech Republic, Nabrezi Edvarda Benese 4, 118 01 Prague
1, www.vlada.cz
The Government Council for NGOs was the official authority that delegated representatives of NGOs to Regional Steering and Monitoring Committees for the individual NUTS II
following the regional conferences of NGOs II.
33
NUTS III Level - Districts
At present there is no methodology in the Czech Republic for effective partnership and
the Districts have differing approaches. For example, in the Olomouc District representatives of NGOs work in commissions of the Council and committees of the District Council
(more details at www.cpkp.cz/skrk) :
Joint declaration on collaboration between the public administration and non-governmental
organizations in the Olomouc District
Let us present a model of partnership between elected and permanent District bodies and
representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the Olomouc District. This
partnership dates back to 1998, when representatives of NGOs participated in commenting on
the programming document 'Pilot Programme Hana.' Then they were offered participation
in the Regional Coordination Group and in the Regional Steering and Monitoring Committee
for NUTS II Central Moravia. These steps were partly necessitated by the continuing
preparation of the Czech Republic for accession to the EU, which involves preparation for
drawing on Pre-Accession and Structural Funds EU, where NGOs also have their place, and
also thanks to methodical recommendations from the EU in respect of representation of
NGOs in bodies coordinating pre-accession and structural aid from the EU. At present the
process is directed at the participation of NGOs in the advisory bodies of the Olomouc
District Council. Representatives of NGOs in commissions and committees participate in the
activities of the Permanent Commission for Regional Conferences of NGOs in the Olomouc
District and they guarantee communication with NGOs in the whole Olomouc District.
The activities of the SKRK include: involvement of NGOs in the decision-making processes
in the Olomouc District, establishing interdisciplinary cooperation between NGOs in the
Olomouc District and other partners in the non-profit sector (public administration, business
sector), support for democratic co-operation between NGOs in the Olomouc District, cooperation with NGOs on the national level, providing more information to NGOs in the
Olomouc District, preparing NGOs in the Olomouc District for accession to the EU, support
for education of NGOs in the Olomouc District, coordination of activities of representatives
of NGOs in committees, commissions and working groups, co-operation in regional
development, coordination of preparation of regional conferences in the Olomouc District.
The third District Conference of NGOs in the Olomouc District took place on 20 March
2001. Representatives of non-governmental organizations participated in the conference civic associations, public utility companies, endowment funds, foundations, church associations,
and other civic initiatives - to commissions and committees of the Olomouc District. This
delegation, based on democratic and free election of participants in the conference, took
place following an appeal from the Olomouc District Council of 3.1.2001.
We achieved such broad cooperation after the experience of several years. We are
convinced that even different opinions on individual problems help solve them. It is just the
application of the Principle of Partnership of the European Union, but also purposeful and
useful cooperation between public administration and civic activities.
Jan Brezina , District Commissioner, Olomouc District Council
Roman Haken, CPKP Central Moravia, Permanent Commission, Regional Conference of
Non-Governmental Organizations, Olomouc District
34
Another model is that of the Committee for NGOs of the Zlin District Council, where this
body deals with problems of the non-profit sector.
Most NGOs are aware of the district-based system and rate the relations rather positively.
But to a great extent everything depends on personal contacts. Unfortunately, the most
frequent form of partnership is grant proceedings announced by district council. They are
sometimes used by district councils to motivate district NGOs to familiarize themselves with
EU regulations applicable to the release of resources from EU funds. Since this is difficult,
such approaches on the part of NGOs are rated differently.
Representatives of local government and cadastral officials realize that NGOs are irreplaceable
in certain areas. A frequent problem in their eyes is the inability to understand the non-profit
sector, its multiplicity and appearing inability to act with flexibility and unity. For an official
it is much better to contact a private company than an NGO, with which he cannot be
sure of a hundred-percent service.
At the centre of the districts' attention is taking over competences in areas that were until
last year fell within the competence of the central authorities. The non-profit sector is therefore dealt with by certain departments. Sometimes a cadastral official is in charge of these
matters. This solution is rated differently by NGOs though positive opinions are prevalent
for the moment.
In the preparation of strategic development documents - e.g. District Territorial
Development Programme - some NGOs were offered participation in the drafting of
programming documents and plans in most districts.
In the non-profit sector sectoral/organizational regional roofs (District Council for the
Handicapped, District Council for Children and Adolescents, District All-Sports
Committee, etc.) are established. The method of delegation to partnership bodies is still problematic. Either a sectoral mandate is chosen or an interdisciplinary conference. In the horizontal position we lack information flows between NGOs; in the vertical position in the individual fields of activities.
National level
Representatives of NGOs were present in steering and monitoring committees during the
preparation of some operating programmes. In most cases it was an ad hoc approach to the
establishment of these partnerships, with unclear methodology and considerable numeric imbalance in these partnership bodies (in favour of public administration). Talks on including representatives of NGOs in the partnership bodies at the national level were led on the part
of NGOs by a working group NGOs and Regional Development (www.cpkp.cz/regiony); later
also by committees of the Government Council for NGOs.
At present an analysis on the fulfilment of partnership principles is being carried out against
the background of the programming documents. In view of the types of SOP it was decided
to contact officials in ministries, who directly participated in the drafting of the documents
(Ministry for Regional Development, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Industry and
Trade, Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications, Ministry of Labour and Social
Affairs, and Ministry of Education). At least two respondents will be contacted in connection
with each document. Independent experts who participated in the drafting of the documents
35
may be also contacted. An NGO is selected if it demonstrably participated in the drafting of
the documents and if it operates nationwide. Exclusive competence in the area of regional
development is not a condition. For example, organizations specializing in ecology, health
care and the social area were contacted. The same criteria apply to the documents SROP and
NDP. The results of the analysis will be known in May 2003.
Common problems from the viewpoint of NGOs in applying the Partnership principle
in the Czech Republic:
¹
absence of consistent methodology
¹
absence of comparable conditions for partners' participation
¹
absence of a consistent approach to partner consultations and dealing with comments
36
Challenges for Civic Society Organizations
in the Czech Republic 1
Doc. JuDr. Ivan Malý, CSc.,
Vice-Dean for Foreign and Public Relations Faculty of Economics and Administration,
Masaryk University, Brno, Lipová 41a, 659 79 Brno, Czech Republic
Telephone: 543 523 111, Fax: 543 523 222, [email protected]
Mgr. Simona Škarabelová, Ph.D.,
Faculty of Economics and Administration, Masaryk University, Brno, Department of
Public Economics, Lipová 41a, 659 79 Brno, Czech Republic
Telephone: 543 523 238, Fax: 543 523 222, [email protected]
The title of this contribution may be somewhat misleading. If we take a close look at
the challenges and the standing of nongovernmental nonprofit organizations (NNO) from
the viewpoint of partner relations, we in no way want to suggest that effective partnership
can be achieved solely by eliminating problems and obstacles that prevent NNOs from
comprehensive participation in the creation and execution of strategic plans and policies of
individual regions. Rather than maximize participation of NNOs in this process, attention
should be paid to finding the right balance, form, and means.
Although the theme of this part of the conference is "organization and representation of
civic society in a manner ensuring effective partner relations," our contribution examines
the current conditions for the forming of partnerships between the public administration
and NNOs (and other sectors when applicable). Can we expect that the result of such partnerships will be effective and will help civil society make progress? Just like V. Havel, we
consider the state, i.e. public power, to be part of civic society 2. Thus, we do not believe
that the nongovernmental nonprofit sector coincides with civic society. Further, we do not
subscribe to the notion that civil principles should be contrary to political ones. The idea
that nongovernmental organizations bring to society a purely "apolitical" perspective in
order to solve "real" problems appears to us questionable, although it is widespread within NNOs.
Existing partnerships and cooperation between government
institutions and nonprofit organizations
Until 1998, Czech political representatives made little effort to regard the nonprofit sector as
a partner in managing public affairs. Politicians behaved this way partly due to overestimating
their legitimacy in the new democratic state and partly due to underestimating the role and
1
2
The document was created as part of Research Project No. ……..
"… one of the fundamental aspects of civil society and, at the same time, one of the forms and conditions
of its development is a decentralized state…" Václav Havel , What Is Civil Society, a speech delivered
on April 26, 1999 in Minneapolis, USA
37
potential of the nonprofit sector in identifying social problems. On the other hand, as will be
shown later, the nonprofit sector went far beyond its real capabilities in its attempts at forming
"equal" partnerships. This situation contributed to a significant polarization of the nonprofit
sector which felt endangered and underrated. As a result, many nonprofit organizations
assumed a negative stance toward government authorities.
After 1998, the incoming government began seeking a different platform for cooperation
with the nongovernmental nonprofit sector. The first seminar entitled "Relationship of the
State and the Nongovernmental Nonprofit Sector" was held in January 1999.
During the seminar, the government promised 3 that it would focus on resolving the problem
of insufficient differentiation of public and mutual benefits, ensure equal access to funds
from public budgets to governmental and nongovernmental nonprofit organizations,
support financing from multiple sources, focus on development of interdepartmental
and multiannual financing, transfer some subsidies to lower levels of public administration, and stimulate donations. These were essentially correct, pragmatic priorities
focused on dealing with the most obvious barriers preventing the proper functioning of
NNOs. The common motive was providing better access for NNOs to funds from public and
private sources. However, the seminar failed to address some other issues concerning in a
more general manner the coexistence of the governmental and nongovernmental nonprofit
sectors and the role of NNOs in the process of conceiving and executing public policies
(cooperation vs. competition in provision of social services, desirable role and legitimacy of
NNOs in defining social problems and setting priorities, effective use of public resources).
The new political representation may not have been aware of, or able to pay attention to these
issues.
The Government Council for Nongovernmental Nonprofit Organizations (RANO)
was created as the government's body responsible for the nongovernmental nonprofit sector
in the Czech Republic. This institution has acted as a consultative body of the government
until now. Its members 4 are appointed by the minister without portfolio, who is the council's
chairman, from the ranks of officials of central government authorities and representatives
of all types of nongovernmental nonprofit organizations. Individual representatives are
selected by nongovernmental nonprofit organizations themselves at their regional conferences.
RANO's first and most important task was distributing finances from the Investment Fund
Foundation to nongovernmental nonprofit organizations. NNOs have agreed 5 that RANO
would continue to prepare materials for government decisions concerning the creation and
execution of plans aimed at providing support for the nongovernmental nonprofit sector.
RANO's tasks include proposing the main focus of the government's subsidy policy and
performing annual assessments of information on the disbursement of government subsidies
3
4
5
Through Minister without Portfolio Jaroslav Bašta
Appointed after the 2002 elections according to new Statutes, the new council has 36 members- representatives of NNOs (they account for at least one half of all members), officials from the central government authorities responsible for interacting with NNOs, and representatives of cooperating regions.
At a national meeting held to discuss a proposal for creating a national platform of NNOs in December
2001.
38
to nongovernmental nonprofit organizations. In the future, the council will also initiate and
coordinate cooperation between central government bodies and cooperating regions in the
area of preparation of support for NNOs.
An overview of the government's priorities in 1999 clearly shows that a great deal of the
original plans have remained unfulfilled. On the other hand, individual ministries routinely
announce grant programs and the overall amount of money distributed continues to grow.
The fact that the current state of affairs seems to be convenient for both sides despite numerous
problems is underscored by the fact that the recent transfer of the responsibility for funding
NNOs to regions and a change of the central government's role have been perceived clearly
as a threat and not as an opportunity. Of importance in this regard is Government Resolution
No. 642 from this year concerning the Main Areas of the Government's Subsidy Policy for
NNOs for the Year 2003 which charges the chairman of the council with submitting to the
government by July 31, 2003 a summary comprising proposals of ministries disbursing
subsidies to transfer some funds allocated for government subsidies for regional NNO
projects to regions starting in the year 2004.
The current cooperation between the state and NNOs relies on the principle that the state
uses its subsidy policy to secure provision of some public services in the area of social and
medical care, education, culture, sports, etc. In other words, the government uses NNOs for
more effective (compared to traditional ROPOs) fulfillment of its tasks. In itself, that is correct
and natural. However, there are negative aspects accompanying the fact that government
subsidies account for the bulk of revenues of individual NNOs. Decisions are made by the
side that pays. Further, there is a growing tendency, as exhibited by the Ministry of Labor
and Social Affairs, that the total volume of subsidies increases proportionately to the number
of subsidized organizations and programs.
Today, an NNO that wants to grow must convince the main client-the state-that its
activity is in the public interest and worth being supported by taxpayers' money. We believe,
however, that the key importance of NNOs in today's democratic countries is not convincing
governments that funds need to be allocated for a specific purpose. We do not question,
however, the general benefit of NNOs in defining the priorities and objectives of government
policies and the need to deal with the institutional aspects of their participation in the creation
of key conceptual materials. We think that the most important role of NNOs is substituting
the non-voluntariness and control-the main principles of government organizations-and
reducing the space occupied by the state and its functions.
The nongovernmental nonprofit sector is a civil sector only to the extent of its ability to
function without government funds. Otherwise, it is irrelevant who spends taxpayers' money,
unless NNOs are much more effective than the public sector.
In this regard, an overview of the structure of external resources of NNOs shows that government subsidies are the most important sources of revenues 6. It is difficult to say whether
this is a "dangerous" level. We would have to know at least an approximate number of NNOs
that are existentially dependent on government subsidies.
6
Some sources cite that approx. 55-60% of external revenues of NNOs come from the state. (In this
regard, DeRynck quotes Friè)
39
Table 1. External revenues of nongovernmental nonprofit organizations (1998)
Subsidies from ministries
Subsidies from districts
Subsidies from self-government
Lotteries and games
Private donations
Foreign donations
Grants from Czech foundations
Tax exemptions
TOTAL
2 188 899 000
144 000 000
504 134 000
826 172 000
1 248 191 000
99 162 000
698 000 000
495 000 000
6 203 558 000
35,3%
2,3%
8,1%
13,3%
20,1%
1,6%
11,3%
8,0%
100,0%
Source: Müller, J.: Economic Environment of the Civil Nonprofit Sector in the Czech Republic. Foundations
and Assets. Donors' Forum. Prague 2000, revised by authors.
One way of averting the danger that financing will become increasingly governmentdependent is defining the scope of services guaranteed by the state. In this regard, steps have
been taken in particular by the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, which has established
standards of social services.
Another important aspect is stimulating donations. However, this area shows one typical
aspect of the relationship between the state and NNOs-despite various proclamations, the
government is very reluctant to relinquish control. Public officials continue rearranging the
manner of announcing grants, securing equal access to funds, and negotiating participation
of the nonprofit sector more willingly than considering stimulating measures, for example
tax exemptions.
General prerequisites of effective partnership
Without debating the meaning of effective partnership, we will assume that the objective of
an effective partnership is overcoming limitations that stem from the internal characteristics
of individual partners and their momentary situation.
Some of the general preconditions of partnerships include mutual trust, the ability to define
objectives and parameters of activities, effective communication, and presence of control
mechanisms. A certain improvement can be observed in this area, among othersthings exhibited
in a gradual improvement of the quality of the proposed grant projects 7. Nonetheless, there
continue to be examples of problematic attitudes. Convinced of the irreplaceable nature
of their mission, some NNOs believe they have an undisputable right to public funds. Their
approach leads to unnecessary confrontations with government authorities that are regarded
by such NNOs as enemies or ignorant of their cause.
Among the most pressing issues is the legitimacy and mandate for negotiation on the part
of NNOs. In this regard, clientelism is often mentioned (i.e. selecting a small number of
subsidized organizations). This phenomenon will be very hard to eradicate, as it is to a large
extent natural and has its economic reasons. Defining the objectives and parameters of activ7
As shown in presentations of representatives of some ministries at the Partnership Community 2002
conference.
40
ities funded by the state is demanding and, economically speaking, the transaction costs are
high. Entry to the sector is difficult, and competition for funds is intense. Where lower
ability to define objectives exists, trust established by previous experience becomes more
important. The problem faced by newcomers is a low level of established trust.
Paradoxically, clientelism results in lower transaction costs.
In our opinion, one of the key prerequisites is the ability of NNOs to convince government
authorities that the deepening of partnerships will result in clear and demonstrable advantages.
In this area, however, NNOs and the theoretical front lag behind substantially. Research
focusing on mapping and analyzing the economic aspects of comportment of NNOs continues
to be rare. Most Czech nonprofit organizations have a clear idea about their place and function in society, which is based on the conviction that they are more efficient and more
innovative than their government counterparts. However likely, this notion continues to
be a hypothesis in the conditions that currently exist in the Czech Republic. In addition, it is
uncertain what the cost, price, availability, innovation, and efficiency of services would be if
they were provided by standard businesses.
There are considerable limits hindering the abilities of NNOs. The principal restricting factor
is a relative lack of funds that translates into a poorer ability of NNOs to deal with widespread
social problems. Further, underfinancing leads to a deficient proportion of production
factors, labor, and capital in the provision of services. Typical difficulties include low
investments, poor equipment, and lagging work productivity (despite often higher intensity
of work performed by committed volunteers or professionals). Unfortunately for NNOs, capital
is simply allocated in a market-driven manner. Another aspect to some extent related to a
lack of funds is the quality of the workforce.
In general, it can be concluded that in cooperation with the public administration, nonprofit
organizations (as all interest groups) monitor problem areas in the society, identify problems
they consider important, and exert pressure on the state and the government to pay attention
to these problems. The state responds in an accommodating manner, creates programs (with
the aid of nonprofit organizations) aimed at resolving problems, seeks resources necessary
for the implementation of these programs, and subsequently approaches nonprofit organizations
and businesses to provide the necessary services. Economically speaking, in this model the
seller influences the buyer, who represents the consumer to some extent only, as to what
products should be purchased. This model is not unusual, indispensable, or inefficient, especially if there is a considerable imbalance of information on what the public wants.
Partnerships between municipalities and regions and nonprofit organizations
As a result of an in-progress reform of the public administration, most existing ministerial
competences concerning the provision of public services are being transferred to regions and
municipalities. Consequently, it will be necessary to seek new ways of establishing partnerships
between regional and municipal authorities and nongovernmental nonprofit organizations.
By decentralization, the public administration will lose its ability to secure equal conditions
in the competition for funds. On the other hand, decisions will be made closer to taxpayers,
and it can be realistically assumed that regions and municipalities will be much better able to
identify the needs and preferences of the local population.
41
These developments were aptly described by a deputy minister of labor and social affairs
at a recent conference:
"We are convinced that local self-governments will be much better able to determine the
need for individual social services in their regions, assess the quality of the social services
provided, and allocate funds where they are needed the most. Nonetheless, the Ministry of
Labor and Social Affairs does not want to relinquish its jurisdiction over this area altogether,
and we will retain control over the government's policy of disbursing subsidies for social services provided by NNOs. We expect that the ministry will continue to set the priorities of the
social policy, announce programs, and support new pilot projects. It is likely that we will support
some projects of national importance. In addition, close attention will be paid to fulfilling needs
that stem from principles of community planning."
A recent survey 8 aimed at mapping cooperation between new regions and nonprofit
organizations until now has shown that partnerships have not had a chance to develop fully,
especially at the regional level, due to a lack of maturity on both sides. Regions do not posses their own funds that would be independent of the state budget, and the transfer of powers
in areas that were in the jurisdiction of districts in the past to regions entails numerous
problems. For these and other reasons, regions are considerably limited in exercising their powers
independently, a fact that restricts the forming of long-term relationships with other players in
this field. Substantial diversification has been ascertained within the nonprofit sector in recent
years as to the form and extent of cooperation between particular nongovernmental nonprofit
organizations, their joint negotiations with regional self-governments, and ways in which they
try to influence regional authorities. Further, there is no question that the nonprofit sector itself
is facing a number of internal problems and conflicts that hinder its ability to act.
The cited survey has identified six general problem areas that are related to additional
problems.
Problems faced by regions include:
1. Their short existence, the related unresolved issues concerning financing and transfer of
powers, and a lack of experience with the functioning of regional self-governments and
application of the principles of regional policy, such as the partnership principle, which is
so important for accession to the EU.
2. Unclear rules for providing, collecting, and exchanging information that may be
due to a lack of willingness to change established procedures and public administration
structures. Problems of this type may result in the non-transparent and uncontrolled
activities of government authorities, decisions made without the participation of other
players in individual regions, and insufficient mapping of the territory, including a lack of
knowledge of NNOs operating in individual regions. In addition, regions do not have set
clear rules that would be binding for both sides and provide the necessary framework for
efforts to establish cooperation. Some regions have at least made attempts in this regard;
for example, the Southern Moravian Region has invited NNOs to participate in the creation of the region's framework subsidy policy on NNOs.
8
Bartošková, J., Rylichová, J., Tylová, P.: Cooperation of Regional Self-Governments and the Nonprofit
Sector. Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University, Prague 2001
42
Frequent problems specific to NNOs include:
3. Missing or insufficiently organized and democratically formulated influence of NNOs
over regional self-governments due to a lack of trust stemming from negative experience
from past cooperation, undemocratic structures, and the concept of representation within
NNOs (for example misuse of a mandate agreed in a coalition of NNOs). Other problems
include a lack of experience and maturity of individual NNOs which have not identified
their opportunities and abilities, have insufficient knowledge of the functioning of the
nonprofit sector and public administration in general, and face a lack of resources and
capacities, for example due to dependence on one source of financing (mostly public
budgets, as mentioned earlier).
Other problem areas apply to some extent to both sides:
4. Pressures on NNOs to adapt to the internal functioning of regional self-governments,
such as the business hours of regional authorities, and travel expenses which exhaust
resources and capacities of NNOs.
5. Problematic formulation of certification rules and rules for allocation of subsidies,
including parameters used for rating the quality of services provided. Regions have
been offered help through taking over and adjusting the previously described state's
subsidy policy under RANO's expert guidance, but it is up to individual regional authorities
whether they will accept the offer or whether they will create entirely new subsidy
policies. If regions choose the latter, it is highly likely that NNOs will face different
formulations of concepts in individual regions and depend on subjective decisions made
by particular representatives of regional self-governments. Such a development would
create additional room for clientelism.
6. Unequal position of individual NNOs and state-funded (regional, municipal)
organizations. This problem could be resolved by the adoption of the Act on the
Provision of Services Benefiting the Public by the government that took power after
the 2002 parliamentary elections. The act should define the parameters of services that
will have to be included in the announcement and assessment of public tenders, trough
part of which the providers of public services are selected. Subsequently, it will be up to
nonprofit organizations to demonstrate their quality alongside all other organizations, i.e.
central, regional, municipal institutions and private businesses (desiring to provide public
services). Further, the act will define the responsibility of self-governments for the
availability of public services depending on people's needs and not in respect of the
existing network of establishments providing public services, or the manner in which they
are secured. Regions and municipalities would be motivated to find the best possible
solution based on local conditions, and savings could be used for other purposes (provided
that the necessary standard of public services will be ensured).
REFERENCES:
Friè, P. and Associates: Strategy of Development of the Nonprofit Sector. Donors' Forum,
Prague 2000.
Friè. P.: Nonprofit Organizations and Influencing Public Politics. AGNES, Prague 2000.
43
Háva, P.: Analysis of Decision Making Processes in Public Politics in the Czech Republics.
In: Purkrábek, M. and Associates: Decision Making, Financing, and Communicating in
Public Politics in the Czech Republic. Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles
University, Institute of Sociology Studies 1997.
Draft Act on Provision of Services Benefiting the Public.
Analysis of Financing Nongovernmental Nonprofit Organizations from the State Budget of
the Czech Republic, Section of the Ministry without Portfolio, 1998, 1999, 2000.
Salamon, L.M., Anheier, H.K.: The Emerging Sector. The Nonprofit Sector in a Comparative
Perspective-An Overview. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University 1994.
Salamon, Lester M., Anheier, Helmuth K. Sokolowski, W. and Associates: The Emerging
Sector. Baltimore. Institute for Policy Studies, the Johns Hopkins University, 1996.
Collection of Contributions from a Seminar on the State Subsidy Policy toward
Nongovernmental Nonprofit Organizations for Employees and Representatives of
Regional Self-Governments. Office of the Government, Prague 2002.
Meetings 2002. Partner Community-Czech Regions in Year II. Collection of contributions
from a discussion forum held as part of the campaign "Thirty Days for the Civil Sector,"
Spiralis, Prague 2002.
Acts cited in the text.
Internet sites: www.cpkp.cz/ps, www.neziskovky.cz, www.vlada.cz
44
Partnership as a Gateway to Management of Public Affairs
Ing. Petr Pirožek, PhD.,
Vicedean for External Relations, Faculty of Management, VŠE Prague,
Jarošovská 1117/II, 377 01 Jindøichùv Hradec, Czech Republic
tel: 384417220, [email protected]
Mgr. Eliška Novotná,
Head of the Public Sector Department , Faculty of Management, VŠE Prague,
Jarošovská 1117/II, 377 01 Jindøichùv Hradec, Czech Republic
tel: 384417207, [email protected]
Partnerships are based on common interest in matters of concern. In the sphere of public
affairs, partnership means the spontaneous participation of citizens in the management of affairs
of common interest in a certain geographically delimited public locality, i.e., a community,
region, or concrete locality drawing the interest of the individual partners in partnership. In
recent years, we have noted a renewal of the trend to form partnerships leading not only to
numerous great activities, but also fundamental misunderstandings. A partnership must not
be regarded as a means of delegating decision-making competences onto lower levels of
authority or merely providing financial support to another authority or organization. Such
an approach to partnership, which is very common in practice, completely lacks the benefits
arising from sharing common interests or space, because the best method of getting
satisfaction lies in the common need to discuss matters of concern, i.e., to have a dialogue
in the true sense of the word. A discussion based on common interest is far more than a mere
stating of facts or information exchange (we have put that behind us), it means joining forces
to seek a solution to "our" cause.
Partnerships are formed on the premise of mutual respect for one's rights, different
opinions about one's objectives, and about the means of reaching them (i.e., what is good,
what should be done, and how it should be done). To be partners means to accept the principle
of equality in diversity, i.e., to respect everybody's equal rights despite the unequal position
of authority of the partners. Partnerships rely on our capability and skill to define "our
problem", find a potential partner to solve it, convince them of the advantages of partnership,
and nourish the spirit of partnership throughout the existence of the partnership. Arerequisite
to partnership is familiarity with the environment where the partnership is to be formed, and
of the processes likely to take place.1 Partnership requires an active approach: at least one
of the partners (unilateral initiative is common) initiated the partnership that is then
developed and cultivated on jointly formulated grounds. It does not really matter who the
active "player" is - be it a public authority representative, an individual, or civic organization
representative, such as an NGO.
Partnership is based on the premise of sovereign and liberal decision-making of human
beings concerning affairs involving public sector authorities. This concept of public affairs
1
Partnership, Community, Philanthropy, Participation - Entry papers to CPSI, a 3-day seminar program,
OSF Prague 2001
45
is accepted in communities where representatives of individual sectors of the society,
knowledgeable and experienced in the operations democratically functioning structures,
actively work and cooperate with one another - there are but a few such representatives in
the Czech Republic. Due to a history of suppression of civic initiatives calling for assertion
of democratic principles, there is a general aversion to forming associations to pursue civic
activities, to express one's views freely and openly, or to assume the role of an opponent
defending causes of common interest against the private sector or administrative authorities.
Thus, partnerships often lose their original purpose, eventually falling into a state of "civic
passivity". This leads to a loss of the opportunity on the part of the other partners to express
their views or present proposals concerning the future of the community of common premises.
Potential partners who fail to form a genuine, functioning partnership will find it more
difficult, time-consuming, and frustrating to pursue a common goal effectively (or give it up
altogether).
Partnership is, primarily, a formal consensus on a certain process aiming to satisfy the
partners' interest, which thus becomes a matter of common interest, more or less convenient
to the individual partners. Partnerships lead to interaction and mutual proximity, even if
consensus cannot be reached every single time. Having a partnership means searching for
ways to delimitate common grounds out of diversity. It is a relationship based on the value
of an individual’s, or on an institution's, position with a focus on a community's common
space exposed to the influence of the public, private, and civic sector.2
Partnership is inseparable from civic society. The objective of civic society is to create
such conditions in the public and cultural spheres as meets the expectations of people and
their understanding of a fulfilling life. The civic society concept goes hand in hand with a
certain degree of liberalism, where every individual is free to decide about his goals for himself.
It is, however, a question of what the individual understands as freedom, and how they
wants to find fulfillment, in other words, a question of individual people's and institutions'
understanding of "freedom". Can a society like ours, given its history, find a way of creating
a genuine civic society? Several NGO-coordinated projects show the way by focusing on
the youngest generation, as the youngest generation's experience with the advantages of
partnerships and pursuit of civic society's principles can be transmitted to the older generation.
From our point of view, it is a very effective method of conveying attitudes and digesting
fundamental democratic values.3 In the end, civic society as a whole learns to apply democratic principles and acknowledge equality of the civic and human rights of all the partners.
Forming a civic society requires a well-functioning structure of liberal democratic
institutions and practical application of their mechanisms. It is conditionally important that
representatives of the private sector and, above all, public administration authorities accept
the concept, role, and purpose of civic society comprising of the representatives of the community and NGO's in a given locality. Are public sector representatives - be it elected representatives or appointed officials - able to form and uphold partnerships? Are they capable
of being constructive in dialogue with partners? It depends, who and where….. There are
problems are on both sides, i.e., both public officials and civic society representatives. Civic
2
3
Štogr, J.: Partnership and Participation - Public Space, Open Society Fund, Prague, 2001
Findings from Project titled Interpretation of Local Heritage through NGO's
46
society has to be able to actively use discussion as the forum where individual citizens have
a chance to express themselves, yet the views of other partners in the partnership would be
considered on the premise of equality.
The main drawback of partnerships is participation democracy and public responsibility.
Representatives of the public sector have a responsibility to their voters and to the government.
Partnership does not take this burden off their shoulders (no wonder that the involvement
of interested parties is frequently viewed as an intervention by "busybodies" who bear no
liability for the consequences of their partners' activities). The idea of civic society's sharing
liability for itself is a very broad concept - it could be an open gate both for representative
democracy and direct democracy. Pursuit of the partnership principle therefore means seeking
a space between absolute direct and absolute indirect democracy. History of partnerships
reveals dire experience with both, opening the space for searching behind the imaginary gate
for unexpected extent. Besides, before this concept of partnership can be take root, it is
essential to create such a social environment as would allow the actors apply their expertise,
skills, and knowledge at their discretion. Once the necessary space opens up to all potential
partners, it will be possible (and in many places already is) to actively impact on the objectives
and processes of local relevance through discussion. Existence of this open forum is
prerequisite to guaranteeing equal rights, i.e., the right of access to information, to participate,
and speak up (and be heard and/or published). Furthermore, it takes willingness and interest
to use the rights thus asserted. Sometimes it seems that partners fail to "show up", even if
such open-forum conditions have been created (vacant halls when public discussions take
place). It clearly indicates that changing the attitudes of the public to the principles of
partnership is a much harder and lengthy process than setting up the right conditions for it.
LITERATURE:
1. Štogr, J.: Partnerství a participace, Veøejný prostor, Praha 2001
2. Vstupní texty k tøídenním semináøùm programu partnerství, komunita, filantropie, participace,
nadace Open society fund, Praha, 2001.
47
48
THE CZECH EXPERIENCE VIEWED FROM THE UK
Dr Mike Geddes,
The Local Government Centre, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick,
Coventry CV5 7AL, UK
Tel: 00 44 2476 522312, e-mail: [email protected]
Introduction
The theme of the conference concerns the contribution of partnerships - between government, civil society and the private sector - to addressing the key challenges facing our societies today.
While there are many differences between the experience of the Czech Republic and the
UK, there are also some important underlying similarities:
¹
¹
¹
¹
In both cases, the relationship between the three spheres of state, market and civil society
is subject to change, and in particular to an erosion of the previous domain of the state and
the public sector by pressure from the market sector, and from civil society.
This pressure results partly from the challenges to the legitimacy of the state and the efficiency of the public sector. Representative democracy is challenged by more direct forms
of political participation and activism; while the services provided by the public sector
struggle to meet the needs of a more educated, critical and affluent population.
As a result of the challenge to the state and public provision, the ideology of the market is
hegemonic; but at the same time there is widespread recognition of the inequalities which
the market produces.
The enhanced demands on civil society organisations to both play a governance role and to
deliver public services is producing serious challenges to the capacity of the 'third sector'.
In this context, which is one of a shifting and contested policy environment, there is a tendency to look to partnerships which bring together actors from all three spheres, in order to:
¹
¹
¹
Enhance the legitimacy of governance
Share risks and costs, in the context of a 'risk environment' and pressures on resources
Enhance the problem solving capacity of the governance system, and especially its ability
to deliver 'joined up' solutions to so-called cross-cutting, 'wicked' issues.
This contribution assesses the ability of partnerships to deliver on this ambitious agenda,
by reference to developments in local governance in England, especially the introduction of
local strategic partnerships (LSPs) and local public service agreements (LPSAs).
Local strategic partnerships
Local strategic partnerships are a major recent innovation in the pattern of local governance
in England. An LSP is a body which:
¹ Brings together at a local level the different parts of the public sector as well as the
private, business, community and voluntary sectors so that different initiatives and services
support each other and work together;
49
¹
¹
Is a non-statutory, non-executive organisation;
Operates at a level which enables strategic decisions to be taken yet is close enough to the
grassroots to allow direct community engagement.
Initial guidance on the establishment of LSPs was issued by government in early 2001.
Currently, LSPs have been set up in the vast majority of localities in England. Progress has
been faster in those 88 localities containing the most deprived neighbourhoods in England
which are eligible for Government funding from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF),
which is conditional on the existence of an LSP. However, many other localities have reacted enthusiastically to the government's proposals.
A number of recent government initiatives relate closely to the core tasks of LSPs:
¹
¹
¹
¹
The introduction of statutory Community Strategies. These are intended to improve the
economic, environmental, and social well-being of each area, and contribute to the
achievement of sustainable development across the country. Local authorities have many
of the responsibilities and powers needed to bring about improvements in their communities,
but other public services, local people, business and the voluntary and community sectors
also need to be able to contribute. It is therefore the task of the LSP to prepare and implement the community strategy for the area.
Steps to rationalise and simplify existing partnerships. It is recognised that there is an
urgent need to rationalise the confusing proliferation of partnerships, plans and initiatives
at local level, to reduce duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy and to make it easier for
partners, including those outside the statutory sector, to get involved. LSPs have been
tasked with the 'rationalisation' of local partnerships within their area.
The launch of a national strategy to renew the country's most deprived neighbourhoods.
The objective of the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal is to narrow the gap
between the most deprived neighbourhoods and the rest of the country, with common goals
of lower unemployment and crime, and better health, education, housing and physical
environment. Effective neighbourhood renewal is seen to depend on services working
together to plan and deliver concerted improvements in public services. Local people,
business and the voluntary sector all need to be able to contribute. It is the task of the LSP
to develop and deliver a local neighbourhood renewal strategy.
The development of local public service agreements between central and local government
to tackle key national and local priorities (on health, education, employment, crime, and
housing), with agreed flexibilities, pump-priming and financial rewards if improvements
are delivered. Local authorities need to show that their proposals are supported by local
people, and need to work with other partners to deliver LPSA targets, through the agency
of the LSP.
This challenging set of tasks require LSPs to:
¹
¹
¹
¹
Develop a variety of means to consult with local people
Build common purpose and shared commitment among partners, avoiding the domination
of any one partner or set of partners
Develop and publicise common aims and priorities
Share local information and good practice
50
¹
¹
Identify, encourage and support effective local initiatives
Develop a common performance management system
For those LSPs in receipt of a Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (but not others) an annual
accreditation process managed by government regional offices has sought to ensure that
LSPs are both strategic and inclusive, are effectively action focused and performance
managed, with a capacity to learn and develop.
Local public service agreements
Within the new context for local governance provided by the LSP, LPSAs are seen by
government as a means of delivering public services better on the ground, in ways which
both encourage local authorities to meet and exceed national targets, and which at the same
time reflect local needs and priorities.
An LPSA is an agreement between an individual local authority and the government. It
sets out the authority's commitment to deliver specific improvements in performance and the
government's commitment to reward those improvements. The scheme was developed from
proposals from the Local Government Association and the government's Public Service
Agreements for individual central departments. It was piloted with 20 authorities in 2001-2
and over the next two years all local authorities (with the exception of second tier districts)
which wish to do so can negotiate an LPSA. The Government wishes local authorities to
involve other organisations in the development of the LPSA.
The essence of an LPSA is that:
¹
¹
¹
¹
The authority commits itself to achieving a dozen or so specific targets that will require
performance beyond what could otherwise be expected.
Government offers to reward success achieved
Government also offers to help achieve success by a pump-priming grant; scope for extra
borrowing; and possible relaxations in statutory and administrative requirements
The targets chosen should reflect both national and local priorities, with the majority
relating to the national PSA targets related to local government services.
LPSAs are intended to complement other policies seeking to improve service delivery
outcomes, including the local authority's Best Value Performance Plan (which may suggest
potential targets) and Neighbourhood Renewal floor targets. In areas eligible for the
Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, LPSAs must include targets related to neighbourhood renewal.
Challenges facing the partnership model of local governance
The environment within which LSPs and LPSAs are emerging is one of major change
in the contemporary forms of governance, with new forms emerging in response to the
deficiencies of traditional, large bureaucratic 'silos', a more fragmented and fluid set of
institutional structures and relationships, and changing relationships between the state, the
market and civil society. Many of these tendencies are closely related to the government's
key policy drivers such as the modernisation of government and local government, continuous
improvement in the performance of public services, and joined up working to tackle crosscutting issues such as social inclusion and neighbourhood renewal.
51
The assumption behind the establishment of LSPs is that a framework of strategic
partnership at the local level will create more efficient, inclusive and pluralist local
governance, bringing together key organisations and actors (from the three spheres of
state, market and civil society) to identify communities' top priorities and needs, and work
with local people to provide them. This is consistent with the widely-shared perception in
the policy community of the advantages of partnership working as a way of achieving
effective outcomes, and solutions to so-called 'wicked issues', by building trust, sharing
knowledge and resources, and working collaboratively across boundaries. LPSAs add a
dimension of 'vertical partnership' between central and local government to the 'horizontal' partnership relationships of LSPs. However, if LSPs and LPSAs are to deliver on the
challenging agenda to which they are committed, they will have to find ways to manage a
number of tensions.
Local and strategic?
For an LSP to be both strategic and local, it needs to tailor its role and function to the
opportunities and constraints in its area. The initial capacity of emerging LSPs will be
conditioned by the history of past partnership working and the character and capacities of
key partners, bringing 'to the table' a set of vested interests, knowledge, aspirations, hopes
and fears. But places vary. Achieving a common vision will have a different meaning in
areas where the task is to overcome deprivation compared to those where it is more to manage
the spin-offs of economic success without jeopardising the existing quality of life. In a large
city, it may be difficult to reconcile city-wide strategic priorities with the diversity of local
communities and their needs, while in a smaller locality the LSP may struggle to engage key
strategic players. Local history, identity, political culture matter and being strategic requires
vertical and horizontal integration in terms of policy and governance across agencies, and
with sub-regional and regional bodies.
Being strategic also demands specific qualities in the partnership. LSP members must be
able to take an overview rather than be driven by sectional interests. They must have the
authority to represent their own organisation and carry through its commitment. Experience
to date indicates that the formative and developmental stages of partnership are vital but take
time. This is the case where the LSP is set up on the foundations of a previous partnership,
which will require partners to adapt to changed goals, structures and membership; but also
when the LSP is a new creation, requiring the establishment of new relationships and trust.
Leadership is seen to be crucial. Whilst the local authority may be expected to take the
'lead' there is a fine line between leadership and domination. But other partners may be
reluctant to invest the time and resources to counterbalance the danger of one player becoming
over-dominant. It is important to establish clear mutual expectations about roles and responsibilities, to get the pace of development right, and to accommodate and exploit difference,
maximising the synergy from the combination of perspectives, roles and expertise. In some
of those areas where the LSP has been set up quickly to access NRF resources, there seems
to have been insufficient time and space for these processes - but in others the 'carrot' of NRF
funds has bee a spur for the LSP partners to 'get their act together'.
52
Inclusive, effective and accountable?
The potential membership of LSPs is very wide. The evidence shows that there is
substantial difference in both the size of membership of LSPs, and the structures through
which members are accommodated and involved. Many LSPs have between 20 and 40
members, but some are much smaller than this while others are much larger. In a significant
number of cases the nature of 'membership' is less than clear - for example whether individuals
are members in a personal capacity or as representatives of their organisation. There is
normally a common core of members from local government and other public agencies, but
more diversity in business and voluntary and community sector membership. The involvement of local councillors also varies widely.
Achieving effective community participation has proved particularly testing for LSPs
dealing with a large population and wide range of interests and policy issues. Many LSPs
are finding that it requires new knowledge and skills to:
¹ Map local groups and umbrella organisations
¹ Identify and work with hard-to-reach groups that may have been excluded from decision
making in the past (young people, BME groups)
¹ Create structures that work for neighbourhoods and communities of interest
¹ Provide long-term support and capacity building for the community sector
LSPs with access to NRF funding can draw on dedicated funding to support community
engagement, but in other localities these special funds are not available.
The emergence of LSPs has also raised politically sensitive issues about representativeness
and democratic accountability. For many local councillors, these new bodies and arrangements
are being put in place without apparent consideration of their implications for local
democracy. Government guidance gives attention to the accountability of partner organisations
to the LSP, but does not address the LSPs' own accountability. It remains unclear where
LSPs sit alongside electoral democracy or how local people hold the LSP to account.
LSPs are exploring different ways of developing the capacity for effective action whilst
also opening up their decision making and delivery processes to a wide range of organisations.
This can be done through wider partnership structures, for example, cross-representation on
other partnerships, tiered arrangements or sub-groups that undertake detailed work on
specific objectives or issues. Thus in some places the LSP is not so much a single partnership
as a nest or network of local partnerships, including as many as several hundred people.
There is also substantial variation in the extent to which LSPs have acquired dedicated staff
and resources to support the work of the LSP. In a few cases, LSPs now have significant staff
teams which are independent of any one partner, but the majority still depend on a minimal
support team, which is often still provided by a lead partner such as the local authority.
While developing their own (sometimes complicated) structures and processes, LSPs are
also beginning to explore ways to streamline and reduce the overall numbers of local partnerships. But current experience is often that the complex network of local partnerships
engages with a wide range of very different interests and is not easy to disentangle or
dismantle. The capacity of LSPs to reduce the 'partnership overload' also depends upon
willingness by central government to desist from creating further partnerships and facilitate
the rationalisation of existing ones.
53
The evidence is that there is still tension in many LSPs between the imperative to be
inclusive and accountable, and the imperative towards effective action. Memberships and
working practices are still evolving in most cases. LSPs with large memberships with
widely disparate access to resources and influence, and those which prioritise inclusivity in
their working processes, may find it harder to agree action. However, those which have
relatively small and tight memberships may find that they are open to accusations of
governance by a local elite.
From strategy to action to outcomes
Key initial tasks of LSPs are the development of Community Strategies and local
Neighbourhood Renewal Strategies. Emerging evidence suggests that LSPs are making
good progress in agreeing the broad vision of such strategies, but that difficulties increase as
delivery requires moving from generalities to specific commitments. Translating strategy
into action can expose weaknesses, tensions and unresolved conflicts between partners. In
order to achieve real change, LSPs must address the delivery of mainstream services, the
quality and effectiveness of these and the bending of local policy and practice in line with
partnership priorities. This can cause tensions not only within the partnership, but particularly if local priorities are seen to clash with vertical drivers from parent departments at
national level. The mainstreaming of LPSAs and the principles they embody will be crucial
in this respect. The initial response to the pilot LPSA programme appears to have been
broadly positive on the part of both local and central government. Local authorities have
welcomed the impetus to innovative thinking which has been offered, while sometimes finding
that the additional resources and flexibilities have been less than anticipated. However, the
transition from a limited pilot programme to a mainstream process will test the capacity of
both central and local partners.
An increasingly important issue for LSPs is that of performance management and
measurement. This applies both to the activity of the LSP itself, and to the perceived need
to hold partners to account for delivery of agreed actions and outcomes - and if necessary
deal with non-performance. The Government is now piloting a performance management
framework for LSPs, and this may prove attractive to LSPs which recognise the importance
of strong horizontal performance management drivers to counter-balance the strong vertical
accountabilities to which most partners are subject, especially those which have been able to
build up a strong enough staff team to undertake a performance management role. However,
some LSPs currently take the view that the approach to performance management which is
appropriate to a traditional organisation is much less appropriate for an LSP. Partnerships
such as LSPs are essentially voluntary institutions, not formal organisations, and performance
management and measurement arrangements need to reflect this context. It is also widely
recognised that there are increasing levels of difficulty associated with the movement from
measuring inputs and outputs to measuring outcomes, and in measuring performance on
so-called 'cross-cutting' issues requiring joined-up working between service providers. In a
similar way, it is recognised that measuring the performance of partnerships poses greater
difficulties than in the context of single services or organisations. A key issue for LSPs is
how to measure the value added to the activities of individual partners by the partnership
(while recognising that partnership working involves costs as well as potential benefits).
54
For some LSPs, issues of learning and development may be more important than the
introduction of formalised performance management systems. The need for LSPs to have
a systematic approach to building skills and knowledge (and at the same time to avoid
information overload) has been recognised, and local learning plans have been piloted in a
number of LSPs, with specific reference to the neighbourhood renewal function. More widely, some LSPs are beginning to explore the possibilities of working together to share
knowledge and experience, and to benchmark their own performance against their peers
within learning networks.
Conclusions
It is, as yet, too early to say whether the new forms of governance represented by LSPs and
LPSAs are fulfilling their objectives of joining up the fragmented system of local governance
in England to deliver better and more integrated local services. While partnership is seen as
a means of enhancing problem-solving capacity under conditions of complexity and
uncertainty, there is a risk that partnership working may add to the complexity and
impenetrability of the governance process. The emphasis of LSPs on the inclusive representation
of stakeholder interests, including those of community interests, needs to be aligned with,
rather than counterposed to, local democratic accountabilities. LPSAs represent a potentially
valuable model of central-local partnership, but the principle of central government flexibility
needs to be applied in a more thoroughgoing way. The value added by partnership remains
hard to measure, and moves such as the introduction of performance management systems
may contribute to the bureaucratisation of local governance which LSPs are intended to
short-circuit.
The UK experience of partnership therefore offers an ambiguous message to policy
makers in the Czech Republic.
REFERENCES
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 2001, Local Strategic
Partnerships, Government Guidance, London. http://www.neighbourhood.gov.uk/publications
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2000 (updated 2003) Local Public Service Agreements,
London. http://www.local-regions.odpm.gov.uk/lpsa/
University of Warwick, University of the West of England, Office for Public Management
and Liverpool John Moores University, 2003, Evaluation of local strategic partnerships:
Report of a survey of all English LSPs, for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and
Department of Transport. London.
55
56
LOCAL GOVERNANCE AND PARTNERSHIPS IN THE OECD
Sylvain Giguere,
Deputy Head of the Co-operative Action Programme on Local Economic
and Employment Development OECD 2, rue André-Pascal, Paris 75016, France
Tel.: +33(0) 1 45 24 85 70, Fax: + 33(0) 1 45 24 16 68,
E-mail: [email protected]
To better respond to a new set of concerns of the population and to promote sustainable
development, governments today actively seek a broad partnership with civil society and the
private sector. It is widely agreed that innovative solutions to the key challenges facing our
societies can be found through an open public debate. Yet, it is at local and regional levels,
closer to the problems and the individuals, that partnerships are most often formed to address
issues of collective implications. Accordingly, partnerships are being established throughout
OECD countries to tackle issues of economic development, employment, social cohesion
and the quality of life.
This note explores the new role that partnerships play in policy frameworks and shows that
the main contribution of partnerships is in improving local governance. It identifies a
number of obstacles faced by partnerships and proposes a series of recommendations to
enhance their impact on governance. This note is based on the lessons learnt through the
OECD Study on Local Partnerships and published in OECD, 2001a.
The new role of partnerships in policy frameworks
The partnerships established recently have little in common with those of the 1980s and
early 1990s set up in specific areas facing severe problems associated with economic
restructuring. Today, partnerships address a broader range of issues (e.g. sustainable development, quality of life) and they are set up within networks that often cover all parts of the
country. Many of these networks have been created by national governments (see Box 1).
Another difference with the early experience of partnerships in crisis areas is that local
actors now wish to participate more systematically in the design of development strategies for
their area. While a few years ago, civil society, as represented by its community-based groups
and NGOs, was alone in proposing the partnership concept, today it is approached and positively considered by a wide range of actors. The business community feels it important to
participate in the steering of public programmes locally in order to address their own concerns about fuelling economic growth. Public services welcome this opportunity to make
public intervention more effective. Both the private and public sectors rely increasingly on
NGOs and community-based groups to help meet current challenges, particularly labour and
skills shortages. Conversely, their partners from the civil society seize this opportunity to
move forward their agenda on re-integration for the disadvantaged and skills-upgrading for
the low-qualified. Trade unions take a more active role in the definition of local strategies,
further defining and developing a new role in promoting improvements in living conditions.
57
Box 1. National governments and partnerships
National governments have created, or supported, most of the networks of partnerships
that now exist in OECD countries. Through these networks, governments seek the cooperation of partners from the private sector and civil society in the pursuit of various
objectives, from stimulating economic development to promoting social cohesion.
Ireland provides good illustrations of such initiatives, which have served as a model
in several European countries. Through successive steps, in 1991 and 1994, the government launched a network of 38 partnerships aimed at improving social inclusion. It
repeated the experience in 2000, establishing development boards in all counties and
cities of the country, tasked with the design of economic, social and cultural development
strategies. Another country where partnerships have become a significant element of the
institutional framework is Austria. In each of the nine Länder, a partnership supported by
the federal government now co-ordinates employment measures and provides a platform
for co-operation between the main actors in this field, particularly the regional governments,
the public employment service, the social partners and non-governmental organisations
(NGOs).
The development councils of the pays promoted by the legislation in France, the
regional growth agreements in Sweden and the local strategic partnerships in the United
Kingdom are all a part of this trend. Partnerships also flourish in Australia, Canada, New
Zealand and the United States, where they have long been involved in diverse tasks
ranging from co-ordinating government policies in the labour market to pooling resources
for economic development. In the US, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 has led to
the creation of partnerships in charge of co-ordinating a broad range of policies, from
employment and social assistance to education, including those measures targeted on
youth. In Norway, a reform proposing the creation of regional partnerships responsible
for co-ordinating the implementation of policies, including those issued at national level,
is being debated by parliament.
The increased interest in partnerships can be illustrated by an example from Belgium. In
Flanders, the public employment service (VDAB), along with the training service providers
of the private and non-profit sectors, have recently seen a reduction in funds available due to
falling unemployment, although the need for labour and specialised skills has still been
growing rapidly. In one of the main cities of the province of Limburg, Genk, where the
labour demand in certain sectors increases sharply while long-term unemployment remains
high, VDAB's local office and the municipality have come together in a partnership
agreement. The aim is to co-ordinate, together with willing independent training service
providers, the training activities in the greater area of Genk. Nearly all of the 23 providers
in the area participate in this exercise. Although they face the risk of being merged or
having their funding cut due to the eventual identification of duplicated services through the
exercise, the providers value positively the net impact of being networked. As part of the
partnership, they can better market their expertise. Community-based providers, working
with disadvantaged groups (e.g., immigrants, young people and women) offer a competitive
advantage in the current context where expansion of the labour force is encouraged, and the
partnership enables this expertise to be made known to the public employment service and
58
the local authorities. Private providers can also increase their visibility to the public and the
business community through the organisation of training fairs. The partnership also organises
workshops to improve the efficiency of the management methods used by the providers.
VDAB, which seconds two officers, and the municipality cover the operation costs of the
partnership.
In this example, the partnership initiative helps each partner organisation to meet its
objectives. The public employment service promotes labour market efficiency through
matching better training services and the needs of the private sector. The municipality both
retains investment in the area and helps alleviate social problems. Private service providers
have the opportunity to develop further, and community-based providers draw more people
out of welfare, delivering initial training and guiding them through further training activities
provided by the public employment service and specialised institutions.
A tool for better governance
However diverse their fields of action (labour market policy, economic development,
social inclusion, quality of life), all partnerships share a common goal: to improve governance - how society collectively addresses and solves its problems and meets its needs.
Through partnerships, civil society, its NGOs, enterprises and different levels of government
work together to design area-based strategies, adapt policies to local conditions and take
initiatives consistent with shared priorities.
Thus perhaps it is no surprise that improving governance should also be considered as their
main contribution. Although emphasis is often given to partnerships' activities of implementing
programmes and delivering services, the expenses incurred by these activities are insignificant
compared to those of their main partners in related policy fields. For instance, the costs of
all projects and activities carried out by the Irish partnerships, the most achieved and
experienced model of local partnerships in Europe, are estimated at three per cent of all
expenditures in active labour market polices, the policy area closest to the remit of partnership
in this country. Similar ratios have been obtained in other countries.
With regard to improving governance, however, their contribution is rather significant,
although hard to assess and, as it will be seen below, far from being optimal. There are at
least three main actions, with direct implications for governance, that partnerships consistently
carry out in all the countries surveyed by the OECD: i) partnerships stimulate the use of
government measures that are in line with local priorities; ii) they assist their partners from
the public sector in better targeting these measures to local needs; and iii) they combine the
effects of various programmes and local initiatives in order to optimise their mutual impact.
These actions are described in turn below.
Stimulating the use of measures. Provided with modest funds to create and deliver
programmes and services, partnerships promote the use of public programmes that can help
to meet the goals assigned to them (e.g., social inclusion, economic development, etc.).
Devoting efforts to the latter stages of the policy implementation process, partnerships work
with the potential users of public programmes: they help individuals to apply for schemes
and subsidies; they assist associations and community-based groups in applying for grants;
they provide advice on the preparation of business proposals; they inform target groups about
the relevant public programmes available and disseminate information on best practices.
Examples of such achievements have been observed in all countries examined.
59
Targeting measures. Partnerships draw public programmes closer to locally-identified
priorities. Opportunities for civil society and other partners to influence the implementation
of policies are provided through either informal co-operative arrangements or more official
framework agreements proposed by the government, which fully utilise the consultative
capacity of partnerships (see an example from Ireland in Box 2). In this way, partnerships
advise public services on the targets, terms and conditions to apply to the local implementation
of certain programmes in order that these better meet local needs.
Combining measures. Partnerships identify and seize opportunities to combine and
enhance the effect of public programmes and local initiatives. The limited resources granted
encourage partnerships to seek synergies that can maximise the local impact of the various
activities carried out in line with local priorities. Partnerships have convinced local actors
from the private, public and non-profit sectors to pool their resources in joint projects. To
carry on with the Irish example above, in several areas, the assistance provided through the
CE/JI framework has been combined with training services provided by other government
agencies and economic development initiatives led by local authorities, planned as part of the
agreed local strategy.
Box 2. The Community Employment/Job Initiative Framework Agreement in Ireland
In Ireland, the conditions for the local implementation by the public employment service
(FÁS) of two schemes promoting re?insertion into the labour market through jobs
subsidies in the non-profit sector (Community Employment, CE, and Job Initiative, JI) are
defined by partnerships, and more precisely by their working group on employment. The
involvement of partnerships is embedded in a national policy framework, the CE/JI
Framework Agreement. The principle aim of the agreement is to ensure that the CE and
JI programmes meet the needs of disadvantaged areas, in terms of the type and the range
of projects supported and the mix of participants involved.
The framework agreement gives the working groups, comprising FÁS and the other
partners concerned, responsibility for setting detailed objectives, monitoring performances,
and exchanging information with regard to the schemes' operations. The working groups
also develop their own plan in relation to the implementation of the framework agreement.
Additional flexibility under the framework agreement is provided by a share of 10 per cent
of the budget available to projects and participants who may not meet the eligibility criteria of the schemes. The partnerships have no responsibility for the appraisal of projects,
nor for the delivery of the measure, which remain the responsibility of FÁS.
The direct costs of the implementation of CE and JI in Ireland in 2000 were 403 million
Euro, which is significant compared to the funds available for partnerships to design and
implement their own activities (estimated at 23 million Euro in 1997). Defining the targets
for the CE and JI schemes is thus an important instrument for the partnerships in
addressing their own local agenda. This arrangement also fosters effective co-operation
between partners. The local public employment service obtains useful information that
aids effective implementation of the programme and helps achieve the objectives set by the
national headquarters. As it remains responsible for implementing the programme, the
partnership's involvement does not appear as a threat to its area of responsibility.
Source: OECD (2001a)
60
A potential yet to be fulfilled
Despite the growing interest in partnerships observed and the achievements described
above, the potential for improving governance using this tool has not been fulfilled. The
experiences surveyed as part of the OECD Study on Local Partnerships show that the benefits
from partnership have often remained geographically limited and focused on specific issues.
Partner organisations have participated in the joint development of projects that could meet
their direct needs, but interest in pursuing co-operation - and in broadening this to other
activities - has often decreased once objectives were being met (see also Turok, 2001).
Faced with a limited degree of involvement from some important partners, notably the public
services, partnerships led by the civil society and social partners have raised funds and
delivered their own services. Separate service structures have then co-existed, reducing
information exchange and opportunities for learning across organisations. Public services
have learnt few helpful lessons from such partnership experience to help improve their methods of working with disadvantaged people and areas (see Box 3).
Box 3. Partnerships or separated structures?
In the United States, the employer organisations, in particular local chambers of
commerce, have often encouraged non-government and community-based organisations
to deliver employment and training services to unemployed people and disadvantaged
groups. In Cleveland, the partnership for economic development led by an organisation
of employers (Cleveland Growth Association) supports the Center for Employment
Training, which provides a wide range of services to disadvantaged groups. Under the
direct advice of the Growth Association, training is specialised and designed to meet the
needs of enterprises in the area. In Chicago, a group of businesses (Chicagoland Business
Partners) supports the provision of employment and training services by DePaul
University, which is linked to a number of community-based organisations in connection
with disadvantaged groups.
Thus, in these areas, the services delivered by private/non-profit partnerships are supplied through a structure separate from public services. Two (or more) service structures
are in operation at the same time despite efforts deployed to gather all services supplied
in one single location through a one-stop system (under the Workforce Investment Act of
1998).
The existence of two separate networks limits the scope for greater direct involvement
of public services in matters related to disadvantaged groups to the extent that other
partners are developing a specialisation in these fields. These initiatives contribute to
the relative isolation of the public services and weaken their capacity to integrate policies
and services in view of improving effectiveness of their action. Public services have in
certain cases lost ground in their own field of expertise, as the objectives they seek to
achieve are also being pursued independently by the private and non?profit sectors operating
through separate networks. In Cleveland, one of the main aims of the Growth Association
is to enhance the efficiency of the labour market, typically the main goal of the public
employment service. As part of its mission, the partnership helps local firms to find
61
workers and promotes the upgrading of workers' skills, with little involvement of the public
service.
Such degrees of duplication and segmentation in activities have also been observed in
Ireland, where a network of local employment services has been set up under the
supervision of the area-based partnerships, and in Southern Italy, where the employment
services have little involvement in partnerships, even if most partnerships voice needs in
the training area. As a result, many partnerships attempt to carry out activities to upgrade
the skills of low-qualified workers and to improve job matching independently from the
public employment service.
Source: OECD (2001a)
A failed cross-fertilisation between public services and other constituencies through
partnerships makes the effectiveness of the overall services delivered to the population
increasingly dependent on the involvement of the private and voluntary sectors. In areas
where the business community is not involved in local human resource development, as
often happens in deprived urban areas where the business community is relatively absent,
voluntary associations are left without significant support, assistance or direction. With no
relevant experience in such conditions, the public service is not sufficiently well-equipped to
help, and this results in an uneven quality of services (Eberts and Erikcek, 2001).
Reconciling public accountability and participatory democracy
Improving the effectiveness and appropriateness of decisions in public policy implementation
through partnership is not an easy task. It raises a fundamental challenge: that of harmonising
public accountability and participatory democracy. Elected officials and public officers are
accountable respectively to their constituencies and to the government. Similarly, trade
unions and employer representatives are accountable to their own members in the first place.
However, civil society and NGOs have little or no accountability. For partnerships to be
effective in fostering co-operation and co-ordination, ways must be found to reconcile
standard accountability frameworks with the use of collective strategic planning exercises
involving various types of actors.
It is precisely to address this central challenge that the LEED Committee requested the
Study on Local Partnerships in 1999. The Secretariat conducted a study in seven countries
(Austria, Belgium/Flanders, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Italy and the United States) to
explore the performances of local and regional partnerships between government, civil
society and the private sector in improving governance. The objective of the study was to
identify and compare across countries: i) the mechanisms used by partnerships to pursue their
main functions (i.e. fostering co-operation, conducting a strategic planning exercise and
implementing the strategy) and ii) the methods used by the partnerships and their constituencies
to meet a series of conditions for partnership efficiency defined through research work and
expert seminars and agreed by the LEED Committee (these are: flexible management
frameworks, institutional commitment, social partners assuming local responsibilities,
mobilisation, legitimacy and administrative efficiency). A follow-up study is currently being
conducted in Belgium/Wallonia, the Czech Republic, Mexico, Norway, Spain and Sweden.
62
The analysis of the partnership mechanisms in the seven countries and of the problems
partnerships encounter in meeting the efficiency conditions has shed light on three main
challenges that partnerships are facing. These are: (i) inconsistencies in the national policy
framework and weak vertical co-ordination; (ii) a narrow approach to policy implementation
taken by public services seeking to maximise efficiency in service delivery; and (iii)
weaknesses in accountability due to blurred lines of responsibility.
The main obstacle to partnership effectiveness is the inconsistency of national policy
frameworks. Governments have created networks of partnerships and given them goals to
achieve, but without ensuring that the prospective partners from the government could take
an active and consistent part in the activities to reach these goals. Public services have rarely
been required to integrate into their mission the policy objectives assigned to the partnerships
in which they were expected to participate. This has made it difficult for them to take part
in joint activities at the local and regional level.
A concrete example is labour market authorities, which have as their main objective to
ensure the efficient functioning of the labour market. Their action to promote geographical
mobility to eliminate unemployment disparities is sometimes conflicting with that of regional
governments in depressed areas that strive to revitalise their localities and retain their
younger population groups. Reducing unemployment is an objective that, in certain
circumstances, may need to be balanced with others, such as promoting sustainable
development, social cohesion and the quality of life. Strategic planning exercises carried out
in partnerships can be useful in this context, and lead to the adoption of more comprehensive
development strategies that reflect widely-shared priorities.
The effect of inconsistencies in national policy frameworks is reinforced by the adoption
by public services of performance management methods aimed at ensuring high levels of
efficiency in reaching targets. Methods of management by objectives and results may
encourage public services to take a narrow approach to implementation, even in
decentralised frameworks, as they provide incentives to concentrate on the units of service
output which are measured and reported. Maximising efficiency in public services
sometimes generates screening effects, whereby less costly cases are served first, and can
reinforce compartmentalisation in delivery. As the Irish example has shown (Box 2), it is
possible to surmount this obstacle through sound partnership mechanisms and thus reconcile
efficiency in service delivery and adaptation to local needs.
A third major obstacle to the effectiveness of partnerships is the issue of accountability.
Partnerships have failed to have their work monitored and evaluated properly. The
accountability framework of partnerships has emphasised achievements in terms of policy
results (e.g., jobs created, unemployed placed into jobs, business start-ups, etc.). However,
partnerships have been allocated few resources to achieve significant results on these
criteria, as shown above. Accordingly, their main task is to help partners better implement
existing programmes, not to create new ones.
Evaluating partnerships in terms of policy results gives incentive to raise funds and deliver
services directly, sowing the seeds of competition with partners from the public service
evaluated on similar criteria. This often blurs the lines of responsibility between partners and
partnership, a major source of accountability failure. Blurred responsibility encourages
63
double reporting between partner and partnerships, a situation whereby both the partner
organisation administering a programme and the partnership involved in its implementation
report the same positive results (and ignore negative ones).
Partnerships should be evaluated by their constituencies in terms of how the latter actually
benefit from working in partnership, for example by: increased use and better targeting of
measures; greater responsiveness to local conditions; identification of opportunities for broader
impact through joint activities; and a higher degree of satisfaction among the population
and the partners involved. By neglecting to monitor and evaluate the performance of partnerships in improving governance, the prevailing accountability frameworks have failed to improve
the working methods of either the partnerships or their constituent partners.
The strategy to improve governance through partnerships
Benefits from taking a cross-sector approach drawing on resources and skills of other
actors at various levels have been identified by public service officers as well as representatives
from local government, social partner organisations and the broader civil society. For public services, partnerships are instrumental in improving the effectiveness and appropriateness
of the programmes they implement and the services they deliver. Yet partnerships are not
always used this way by their constituencies. Opportunities to improve governance are
missed due to inconsistencies in the national policy framework, a narrow approach to policy
implementation and failures in accountability, described above.
A strategy can be implemented to maximise the impact of partnerships on governance.
Adopting this strategy has implications not only for partnerships, but also for their
constituencies: the government, and its relevant public services; local and regional governments;
trade unions and employer organisations; NGOs and community-based organisations.
Improving governance through partnerships requires four specific objectives to be met (this
strategy was reviewed by TDPC and adopted by the LEED Committee. Detailed recommendations can be found in OECD, 2001a):
i. to make policy goals consistent at national level;
ii. to adapt the strategic framework for partnerships to the needs of the partners;
iii. to strengthen the accountability framework for partnerships;
iv. to provide flexibility in the management of public programmes.
i) Make policy goals consistent at national level
The partnership experience shows that the potential to co-ordinate policies at local level is
limited by the degree of consistency across the policy objectives pursued by the various
government departments at national level. In order to make partnership relevant and effective,
the partners must aim at common or compatible objectives at national level, which can be
pursued more concretely and attained more efficiently in partnership at local or regional
level. Thus, local co-ordination work carried out by partnerships should be complemented
by a similar process at central level. The creation of a network of partnerships should be
accompanied by a mechanism through which local and regional experience is fed back to the
top to highlight deficiencies in the national policy framework. A mechanism should also
exist to facilitate the necessary trade-offs between government departments (and social part64
ners) in view of achieving full consistency among the national policy objectives related to
the goals of the partnerships. As a result, all the partners whose participation is needed
should be accountable for the outcome achieved by partnerships.
Once partners have made their objectives consistent, and agreed on the role to be given to
partnerships in policy implementation and in improving governance, they should identify the
benefits they expect from mutual co-operation, and what they must in turn contribute to the
partnership to make it work effectively. Evaluation criteria should be established on this
basis by the partners themselves. This should help solve the accountability failure identified
above.
ii) Adapt the strategic framework for partnerships to the needs of the partners
While public services have identified an interest in working in partnership, an uneven
degree of ambition among the other constituent partners sometimes undermines their
incentive to actively participate in the partnership process. Paradoxically, strong involvement by community-based organisations and NGOs may discourage public service officers
from sharing information and from engaging in open discussion on how to surmount obstacles to cross-sector decision-making. Nevertheless, experience shows that various types of
partner organisations are prepared to invest in a partnership when it can help them achieve
their goals. This is reflected by examples of partnerships in which the operating costs have
been entirely financed by the local partners, e.g. municipalities and public service offices.
The strategic framework for partnerships should enable public service officers and local
officials to achieve their policy objectives through participation in defining and implementing
the partnership strategy. More particularly, strategies designed by partnerships should ensure
consistency of objectives across levels of governance, and seek to consolidate those that are
common to groups of local partners, such as neighbouring municipalities (see Box 4). This
will encourage them to use the partnership as a tool to improve the quality of their own
actions locally, and, in turn, stimulate wider participation and mobilisation.
Box 4. Spatial consistency of objectives: the Tyrol example
Spatial consistency of objectives can be illustrated by an example of objectives pursued
across levels of organisation. In Tyrol (Austria), the regional government has integrated
in its regional development strategy the objectives formulated by a partnership bringing
together three districts at sub-regional level and inspired by the situation found at municipal level. The objective of "strengthening the local supply chain" is consistently referred
to in the economic strategy designed at each of four different levels: (i) the Land of Tyrol,
(ii) the partnership of the region of Tiroler Oberland und Außerfern which covers a part
of the Land, (iii) the district (Imst) covered by that partnership, and (iv) in one of the
municipalities located in that district, Tarrenz.
Spatial consistency of objectives has thus promoted a bottom-up approach in policy
design, and reduced the risk of inconsistency between economic development actions carried out across levels. It stimulates co-operation and commitment across administrative
levels to the extent where activities executed at a given level help achieve goals at others.
From a geographical perspective, this increases horizontal co?operation, as other areas
may become more aware of the objectives pursued by their neighbours, due to consolida65
tion and greater visibility, and identify them as relevant for their own area. Neighbouring
areas are then given the opportunity to assess whether the work of partnerships has had
any impact on the design of government policies at higher administrative levels. In Tyrol,
districts not covered by the partnership have asked to implement some of the projects carried out in Oberland und Außerfern.
Source: OECD (2001a)
iii) Strengthen the accountability framework for partnerships
Joint co-operative actions may be accompanied by a blurred distribution of responsibility,
providing partners with incentives to claim responsibility for positive results while ignoring
failures. Various other ways to undermine the accountability of partnerships have also been
identified: an uneven degree of participation by partner organisations, ad hoc representation
of their delegates, absence of mandates guiding delegates' action, and weak reporting
mechanisms. Weaknesses in the accountability framework harm commitment from those
institutions most responsible, such as the public services ultimately accountable to parliament,
and elected municipal officials. Strong accountability is a prerequisite for effectiveness in
policy co-ordination and legitimacy of resource-allocation decisions.
To strengthen the accountability of partnerships, partners from all sectors (public services,
social partners, non-government) should have a clear policy on the issues addressed by the
partnerships. They should, accordingly, define mandates and reporting mechanisms for their
delegates. Partners should agree on appropriate representation mechanisms for each sector,
and on a clear distribution of responsibility when public programmes are implemented with
the partnership's involvement. They should seek to separate the functions of strategic planning
and project appraisal involving public funds to avoid conflicts of interest (see Box 5).
Box 5. Separating the partnership functions in Italy
Some countries have separated the tasks of strategic planning and appraising projects.
In Italy, neither the board of directors nor the working groups of partnerships (territorial
pacts) are involved in the approval of projects and the allocation of funds. The board
agrees on a number of strategic objectives and on a series of criteria for the selection of
projects to support. Through a tendering procedure, an accredited bank receives the proposals, ranks the different projects following the criteria and selects a number of projects
depending on the funds available.
This separation of responsibilities is conducive to good governance. Public accountability is enhanced as the beneficiaries of the projects selected are not involved in the
approval of projects, limiting the scope for conflicts of interests. Cohesion among partners improves, because the board is not responsible for finding agreement on competing
proposals; moreover, they are allowed to propose projects themselves through the tendering procedure, and this helps sustain their commitment. In addition, greater division of
labour promotes greater efficiency in management. It can be argued that, with business
projects analysed by financial institutions, the right skills are used for the right tasks.
Source: OECD (2001a)
66
iv) Provide flexibility in the management of public programmes
In light of the partnerships' strengthened accountability framework, the degree of flexibility
provided in the management of policies related to the goals assigned to partnerships may be
revised to meet the growing needs of local public service offices. Insufficient flexibility
provided in public management may limit the scope of the benefits that local officers can
reap from working in partnership, preventing them from translating their participation in the
definition of a local joint strategy into concrete involvement in its implementation.
Furthermore, a weak capacity to respond to local priorities by public services, social partners
and local governments undermines the scope for fully co-operative relationships within
partnerships to the extent that it may convey incentives to partnerships to develop their own
measures involving service delivery. Partnerships should be involved in the targeting of
public programmes related to common goals, while the main responsibility for implementation
should remain with public services.
Conclusion
The work undertaken by the LEED Committee confirms that partnerships are a good tool
for improving governance. Partnerships allow for the integrated, or "holistic", approach to
policy development, which is so often advocated as a way to achieve social cohesion and
sustainable development (see for instance OECD, 2001b). In gathering within the same
structure the relevant partners from the public, private and civil-society sectors, partnerships
add information to decision-making processes, increase the appropriateness of implementation
of government policy and co-ordinate with it the actions of other actors. Partnership
promotes modern public management methods based on contracting relationships and
empower local stakeholders in the implementation of more lasting solutions.
Partnerships have also proved useful in helping public services improve the effectiveness
of the programmes they implement: partnerships stimulate the use of measures that correspond
to shared priorities; they help adapt programmes to local needs and conditions, taking
advantage of the knowledge of the various partners on the local problems and target groups;
and they identify and draw on synergies between government programmes and local initiatives
that can enhance their mutual impact. Partnerships do not generate costs as such: they are a
way of working, a tool that can be used by the various partners to improve the effectiveness
of their actions.
However, as the work clearly shows, it is not because government sets up a network of
partnerships throughout the country that better co-ordination of actions will necessarily
occur. The effectiveness of partnerships is harmed by inconsistencies in the national policy
framework, a narrow approach to policy implementation and failures in accountability.
Further adjustments are needed in the policy management frameworks of the different partners
to improve governance and the appropriateness of collective actions. To this end, the LEED
Committee proposes the Strategy to Improve Governance through Partnerships presented in
this note.
The Strategy is designed to make more effective the ways society collectively solves its
problems and meets its needs. It should be part of broader government initiatives to reconcile
economic competitiveness, social cohesion and environmental progress.
67
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
EBERTS, R. AND ERIKCEK, G. (2001),
"The Role of Partnerships in Economic Development and Labour Markets in the United
States", in OECD (2001), Local Partnerships for Better Governance, OECD
Publications, Paris, France.
OECD (1998),
Local Management for More Effective Employment Policies, OECD Publications, Paris,
France.
OECD (1999),
Decentralising Employment Policy: New Trends and Challenges, OECD Publications,
Paris, France.
OECD (2001a),
Local Partnerships for Better Governance, OECD Publications, Paris, France.
OECD (2001b),
Sustainable Development: Critical Issues, OECD Publications, Paris, France.
TUROK, I. (2001),
"Innovation in Local Governance: the Irish Partnership Model", in OECD (2001), Local
Partnerships for Better Governance, OECD Publications, Paris, France.
68
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFORM
Josef Postránecký,
Deputy Minister Ministry of Interior, U Obecního domu 3, 110 00 Praha 1, Czech Republic
Tel.: 261 446 166
This conference is devoted to discussions on the results of the changes effected in the
Czech Republic's system of local self-government, changes that were made either through the
restoration of its communal self-government system in 1990 and the introduction of selfadministration at the regional level in 2000. Public administration reform became a matter of
great attention for both political circles and the entire society right at the onset of the country's
social transformation after 1989. The enactment of the Constitutional Act No. 347/1997 Coll.
on the establishment of higher territorial self-governing units (regions) has actually been the
trend-setter in applying the principle of rational division of powers among the individual
levels of public administration, the principle of subsidiarity, while enhancing the influence
of citizens on the development of the territory where they live, and - at the same time - bringing
state administration closer to them. By taking this particular step, the Czech Republic has
espoused the task of reforming its public administration, a project which was - at that time well under way in many other European countries heading towards greater openness, transparency
and efficiency of their public administration sectors, towards the promotion of administrative
ethics, administrative culture and decentralization.
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFORM, ITS MEANING
AND GROUNDS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
The ultimate goal of the public administration reform is to eliminate - to the maximum
degree - the persisting defects in its execution. Public administration reform means a
comprehensive systemic change - decentralization, deconcentration and professionalization
of the country's public administration sector. The Parliament of the Czech Republic has opted
for the so-called combined model of the execution of public administration, i.e. pursuant to
special legislation the self-governing bodies execute - in addition to their own self-administrative
roles - state administration with delegated powers.
Public administration reform in the Czech Republic is based on a wide-ranging concept,
which encompasses the following spheres:
- reform of local public administration;
- first stage - establishment of regional self-government;
- second stage - termination of the activities of district
authorities and the transfer of their powers;
- modernization of central state administration;
- upgrading the quality of public administration as a whole.
The reform of public administration in the Czech Republic has been launched with the
reform of its local public administration even though - and quite understandably - many
transformational steps connected with the changed character and function of public
administration have been taken concurrently within the whole system of public administration.
69
In the long-term perspective, the main reason for reforming local public administration lay
in what has proved to be its inadequate territorial administrative arrangement. At the same
time, the territorial structure of the country's public administration sector represents one of
the parameters which is most difficult to change and on which the overall quality of the
whole system depends. The ultimate purpose of the reform was and still is to achieve
deconcentration and decentralization of state administration, i.e. to devolve state administration
from the central state administration authorities to lower levels of public administration and to
self-government, thus bringing the public administration system closer to the citizen.
Furthermore, steps have also been taken to meet the other goals pursued by the country's
public administration reform, namely:
- promoting informativeness in the public administration sector;
- professionalization of the public administration personnel by introducing a system of
training civil servants;
- raising accessibility and quality of public services.
THE MAIN PRINCIPLES OF THE REFORM
OF LOCAL PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
After the country's system of self-government was restored at the communal level back in
1990, of crucial importance for the continued process of transforming public administration
was the restoration of its regional structure pursuant to the Constitutional Act No. 347/1997
Coll. on the establishment of higher territorial self-governing units. However, the newly
established regions differ - in territorial terms - from the current regions, in which the
Regional National Committees operated until 1990 and which still constitute territorial
districts for many specialized bodies within state administration.
In practice, the first stage of the reform of the local public administration sector was,
therefore, launched with the promulgation of the Constitutional Act No. 347/1997 Coll.
introducing in the Czech Republic a higher system of self-government, which was of key
importance in terms of the possible application of the principles of decentralization, deconcentration and subsidiarity in public administration.
Having formed the territorial basis for its regions and having shaped the concept of reforming local public administration, the Czech Republic faced the most crucial task in the legal
enactment and internal organization of its regional public administration sector and its powers.
This has been duly accomplished thanks to a package of Acts passed during the year 2000.
Act No. 129/2000 Coll. on regions has proved to be most important of all. The powers of
individual regions were predominantly devolved from the central administration authorities
and their deconcentrated bodies. A smaller portion of powers was transferred to the regions
from the district authorities, while new powers emerged quite exceptionally, notably in the
field of regional policy. The individual powers vested in state administration were devolved
pursuant to special legislation, Act No. 132/2000 Coll., so as to avoid upsetting the stability
of the basic pattern of activities discharged by the regions as listed in the aforementioned
Regions Act.
The second stage of the reform of local public administration comprises especially the
following tasks and goals:
70
- stipulation of 205 communities with extended powers and the establishment of their
administrative districts;
- transfer of the powers of the district authorities and devolution of their other functions to
self-governing authorities (communities and regions), and to other administrative
authorities;
- safeguarding the transfer of the current district authorities´ personnel, and the use of the
buildings housing the present district authorities on the one hand, while creating material
prerequisites for the communities with extended powers to assume their functions and
duties as of January 1, 2003, on the other hand.
The ultimate purpose of this particular stage is to terminate the activities of the district
authorities and to transfer their powers to other subjects, as laid down by the law. This entails
primarily the communities with extended powers to which most of the powers will be
devolved in an effort to meet one of the crucial goals of the reform - namely to bring the state
administration sector closer to the people.
ESTABLISHMENT OF REGIONAL SELF-GOVERNMENT
The actual purpose of reforming local public administration in its first stage was to create
a legal framework, logistic and financial conditions for the establishment and activities of the
higher territorial self-governing units. The election of regional councils held on November
12, 2000 instituted local councils in 14 regions. These are the following regions: Støedoèeský
- Central Bohemian, Jihoèeský - South Bohemian, Plzeòský - Pilsen, Karlovarský - Karlovy
Vary, Ústecký - Ústí, Liberecký - Liberec, Královéhradecký - Hradec Králové, Pardubický Pardubice, Vysoèina - Highlands, Jihomoravský - South Moravian, Olomoucký - Olomouc,
Moravskoslezský - Moravian-Silesian, Zlínský - Zlín, and Praha - Prague. The constituent
sessions of those councils were convened well within the legal deadline, between December
18 and 21, 2000. Their hejtmans (chief executives) were elected, later taking over the
administration of the further activities of the regional councils.
Linking up to the newly adopted legislation, preparations got under way for the activities
of the regional authorities and regional bodies, encompassing primarily personnel provisions
of the regional authorities, property transfers connected with the transfer of incorporating
functions towards institutions receiving contributions from the state budget and the state's
organizational components providing essential public services in education, culture,
transportation, health care, and social welfare. Moreover, the regions received methodological
assistance in the management of their work and the training of civil servants in the regions
in connection with the establishment of the regional level, the drafting of recommended
job descriptions for the individual departments of the regional authorities and their
employees, as well as the elaboration of model organizational guidelines. The state then
released financial resources to cover the activities of the regional authorities and regional
bodies for 2001.
Powers transferred during the first stage of the reform of local public administration:
One of the key steps in the first stage of the reform of public administration consisted of
decentralizing and deconcentrating the exercise of public administration in the Czech
Republic was Act No. 132/200 Coll. on the amendment and repeal of some legislation
71
pertaining to the Regions Act, Communities Act, District Authorities Act, and the Capital
City of Prague Act. Under this particular legislation, powers have been devolved from the
Government Ministries, local educational authorities and district authorities to the regions
with delegated and separate powers. All in all, this involved the transfer of powers pursuant
to as many as 29 different acts, which entailed a total of nine Government Ministries.
COMMUNITIES WITH EXTENDED POWERS
With the establishment of regions, the public administration sector in the Czech Republic
(if we add in the central level as well) has been changed into a four-tier system (central level,
regions, districts and communities). But in actual fact, the Czech Republic is not such a large
country to warrant a four-tier system as a necessity; on the contrary, there are signs that in a
bid to make the information and decision-making flows more transparent, it will be suitable
to introduce a three-tier public administration system. Furthermore, the existing districts in
many cases do not represent natural catchment areas. Usually there are two to four such
centers in a district.
Implementation of the second stage of the reform of local public administration proceeded
from Act No. 147/200 Coll. on District Authorities, the validity of which ends on December
31, 2002. This date marks the deadline for terminating the activities of the district authorities.
In keeping with the philosophy of the so-called combined model, whereby powers to execute
public administration are devolved, to a large extent, to self-governing authorities, activities
involving the execution of the powers of state administration will be transferred from 73 district
authorities and 3 statutory cities to as many as 205 communities with extended powers whose
local councils will execute state administration with delegated powers, or to regional authorities,
predominantly in cases where - as a rule - citizens come into contact with the execution of state
administration only very rarely or where state administration functions and services with
considerable requirements for specialization are involved.
The appropriate legislation creating a legislative framework for the second stage of the
reform of local public administration was prepared by the Ministry of the Interior, and - after
discussions by the Parliament of the Czech Republic - it was approved in June 2002.
Course of the second stage of the reform of the local public administration sector
The second stage of the public administration reform, which entails the transfer of powers
from the district authorities to communities with extended powers, to regions or to some state
authorities, comprises both the task of preparing the actual buildings housing the pertinent
authorities and the funding and creation of material prerequisites for the provision of the
services being transferred. The powers of state administration will be devolved to self-governing
bodies and to some other administrative authorities as of January 1, 2003, mostly pursuant
to Act No. 320/2000 Coll. on the amendment and repeal of some acts pertaining to the
termination of the activities of the district authorities, but also under the provisions of other
legislation amended or newly adopted during the drafting and discussions of the Acts
prepared directly in connection with the second phase of the country's public administration
reform. Roughly 80% of the powers formerly vested in the district authorities will be
exercised - after January 1, 2003 - by the communities with extended powers. This applies
72
primarily to services in handling personal documents - identity cards and travel documents,
drivers licenses and technical permits, motor vehicle registration, trade licenses and permits.
The entire scope of duties and services involving the public welfare system, environmental
protection, administration of state-owned forests, transportation and road management has
also been transferred to those communities with extended powers. The regional authorities
will primarily exercise the powers of appellate councils to appeal against decisions taken by
the communities, and their duties will also include public services for citizens which are very
specialized and very rare. Also ranking among the powers discharged by self-governing units
- for instance incorporating functions - will also be devolved to a small extent. Some of
the powers exercised in the past by the district authorities are being transferred to other
administrative authorities, namely Land Register Offices - land-register services formerly
provided by departments of Land Register Offices at district councils, State District archives
- services rendered by district archives, and the Office for State Representation in property
matters - services concerning property transfers, settling the management of district councils
and communities for 2002, completion of tasks connected with the process of winding-up the
district authorities.
UPGRADING THE QUALITY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION BETTER PUBLIC SERVICES FOR CITIZENS
One of the essential prerequisites for the quality functioning of the public administration
system after the completion of the reform processes is its gradual professionalization. As
early as in 1999, immediately after the approval of "The Concept of Public Administration
Reform", the Government of the Czech Republic received and after discussions approved
"The Concept of Training Public Administration Employees", and subsequently the draft
"Training System for Employees in Public Administration".
This training system will be gradually put into effect pursuant to Act No. 312/2002 Coll.
on the officials serving in territorial self-governing units, a law which comes into force as of
January 1, 2003. This particular Act governs not only the status of civil servants serving
in the territorial self-governing units (communities and regions) but also regulates the
method and system of their training as compulsory for both the employer and the employees
who do such administrative work. Its implementation will be entrusted to the existing Local
Administration Institute. Then, pursuant to Act No. 218/2000 Coll. on the service of civil
servants in administrative offices and the remuneration of such employees and other staff
serving in administrative offices (the Service Act), the newly established State
Administration Institute will guarantee the training of civil servants employed in central
administrative authorities.
The afore-mentioned laws and their related executive regulations share one common feature,
namely wholehearted efforts towards greater professionalization of public administration staff.
Introduction of this particular training system is expected to upgrade the overall quality of the civil
servants and thus also the quality of public administration services for the benefit of the public.
Public administration in the Czech Republic is being and will have to be adjusted to a
changed environment and respond to the resulting changes of its tasks. The main factors
affecting it are as follows:
73
¹
¹
¹
¹
greater demands placed on the quality of public administration by Czech citizens;
reform of the local public administration sector during which activities of an operative
nature (decentralization and deconcentration) are being transferred from the Government
Ministries to local self-governing territories; at the same time, pressure has been building
up to coordinate proceedings by the Government Ministries and other central administrative
authorities;
introduction of state-of-the-art information and communication systems and technologies
is expected to be conducive to changing the methods of execution of public administration,
paving the way for improved public access to public administration ;
the Czech Republic's planned accession to the European Union, which will raise demands
for greater efficiency of the central state administration since the Government Ministries
in particular will bear the brunt of enforcing Czech interests in the European Union, being
- at the same time - responsible for assuming and applying the acquis of the European
Communities in the Czech Republic.
After the last general elections in the country, the new Government of the Czech Republic
pledged - in its Program Statement from August 2002 - to continue pursuing the stipulated
goals in the field of public administration reform. This means a commitment to complete the
reform of the country's local public administration sector and launch the modernization of
its central state administration system in compliance with the reform steps already initiated.
In this Program Statement the Government has laid down its main goals and priorities, also
delineating the tasks for the Ministry of the Interior in the coming period.
74
Partnership in the Czech Republic Are we ready for real partnership?
Marek Jetmar,
Dept. of Regional Strategies and Concepts, Ministry for Regional Development,
Staromestske nam. 6, 110 15 Prague 1, Czech Republic
Telephone: 224 861 340, Fax: 224 863 155, E-mail: [email protected]
The ongoing reform of public administration and the implementation of a new regional
policy in the Czech Republic sets the individual levels of public administration - individual
'governments' - the task of creating an institutional framework necessary to implement
policies (in particular developmental, i.e. regional) entrusted to these authorities.
The current dynamic developments in the system of public administration have been
brought about by two pressures: one endogenous and one exogenous. The first is the State's
internal need to build up the standard public power structures connected with the changes
after 1989. The external impulse to change rests on the requirements for compatibility on the
part of the EU and the desire of the Czech Republic to join this supranational body (preparations
for the implementation of the Union's policies -primarily the policy of economic and social
cohesion).
Preparations for using of resources from the Structural Funds within the framework of the
pre-accession programmes PHARE, SAPARD and ISPA (anticipated by the Cohesion Fund)
are connected with the preparation of projects that must meet the requirements and conventions
applied in the EU.
It is only through these programmes that we familiarized ourselves with the principles
applied in EU regional and structural policy - partnership, subsidiarity, programming, and
evaluation.
A final three-level administrative structure was formally established in the Czech Republic
last year. It consists of state administration (central) and self-government at the regional and
local levels. In addition to legislative definitions, this necessitated material facilities for the
new public administration authorities - districts and communities with extended powers.
The work content of these institutions is being filled this year by the delegation of powers
from the former district councils and selected powers from the centre.
It appears that these determined efforts overshadow the question of making public administration more flexible and the possible participation of other institutions in administration - representatives of civic society (social partners, NGOs, universities), integration of policies pursued by public administration authorities, cooperation in the formulation of basic and longterm development concept, cofinancing development measures (setting up funds).
These questions were legitimately posed in the 1980s but they attracted more attention in
Western Europe only in the 1990s. Then, besides the traditional problem of the inability of
public administration to respond promptly to environmental changes and the controversial
results of nationwide policies carried out on the local level, the problem of long-term
unemployment was now viewed as sensitive, coupled with the increasing instability of public budgets, which led in the end to expenditure cuts.
75
Ways were and are being sought to fulfil an increasing number of tasks with the existing
level of resources.
Advanced countries pursue two main goals that are interrelated. This division rests on
the prevalent (traditional) method of administration in individual countries with the
stress on concentrating efforts in addressing such issues as unemployment and territorial
development.
a) Support for employment
This is a question of harmonizing supply with demand in local and regional employment
markets, where public authorities try to approach a market optimum point by eliminating
structural unemployment. Through analyses of local employers' demands they propose
and run retraining programmes in broad cooperation with both non-profit and private
profit-oriented companies.
The role of public authorities consists of:
- creating the groundwork for the dissemination of information among the social partners,
- setting joint priorities in the area of retraining and education,
- working the priorities into development documents - strategies and programmes,
- integrating social policies - social insurance and social benefits,
- supporting the employment of risk groups (graduates, immigrants).
b) Supporting economic growth and improving the quality of life
This means defining problematic phenomena (disparities) in a region and addressing them
jointly with other parties concerned in regional development with the ultimate goal of
supporting regional growth and improving the quality of life.
The role of local public authorities consists of:
- coordinating the drafting of development documents,
- involving representatives of all entities concerned in the preparation of strategic documents
and operating programmes,
- creating a framework for successful implementation of the programme.
The role of central government consists of:
- creating a legislative framework regulating partnership,
- supporting directly the establishment of regional and local partnerships,
- supporting these groupings financially (sometimes in the form of a share in tax revenues).
It follows from this that much work is needed to achieve formal equality among all the entities
concerned. The State's powers (less so those of self-government) recede into the background,
all activities are undertaken on the basis of mutual recognition (memoranda on mutual
understanding are signed in some States) and voluntary partnerships.
The whole approach is underpinned by a pragmatic premise: it is advantageous for
everyone concerned to cooperate.
Partnerships can take a countless number of forms, with differing numbers of partners. A
community can join a number of partnerships and establish any number of mutually beneficial
partnerships, according to its needs. On the lowest level this may involve, for example, the
76
joint operation of the technical or environmental infrastructure (waste treatment plants,
waste disposal sites), which happens in the Czech Republic in the case of voluntary community associations.
At the micro-regional and regional level, partnership is usually more institutionalized and
development councils are set up with their secretariats as forums for meetings of the regional
development actors. They discuss questions of economic, social and cultural orientation of
the region, negotiate development priorities, draft documents and set criteria for project
evaluation.
Benefits of partnership:
a) raising management standards,
b) exploiting better the existing capacities,
c) increasing absorption capacities,
d) making the policies pursued by public administration authorities more consistent,
e) making their interventions more effective.
It is remarkable that the issue of making administration more effective and applying the
partnership model is being addressed today by States with both etatist and corporate
traditions, as well as by liberal societies with traditionally numerous representted NGOs.
The methods of applying partnership in the Czech Republic and the possibilities of reinforcing
and expanding it were examined by a team of researchers led by Filip De Rynck from the
University of Ghent, Belgium, who conducted several field studies in 2001 in the North West
cohesion region, Vysocina District and Prerov Subdistrict.
The resulting report, which will be published during the conference 'Society in Transition:
Rebuilding Partnerships,' reflects the dynamics of changes in public administration in the
Czech Republic, characterized by the demise of the old administrative structure, accompanied
by the existence of interim authorities - particularly on the regional level, with vaguely
defined powers and incomplete formation of new authorities. Yet the authors reached certain
general conclusions, which should, in view of the authors' impartiality, give an objective
view of the readiness of our society to make use of this instrument.
The question as to how to achieve a more effective administration structure by balancing the
roles of communities, regions, the State (and soon the EU), connected with redistribution of
public power (and powers) and furnishing these institutions with resources (i.e. by reallocating
them from the State) and the possibility of involving other non-public administration entities
in public administration has been much discussed lately among the professional public.
It is evident that despite certain progress made in these areas in the last few years, we are
still at the beginning of addressing these issues. The groundwork has already been laid for
the establishment of effective partnership (e.g. regional autonomy) and some interest can be
perceived in the application of this modern method of administration at the regional and local
level (e.g. the Vysocina District). Nonetheless, the necessity of institutional changes for further
development is becoming clear. Czech society has not satisfactorily resolved such key issues
as the relationship between representative and participative democracy, the method of
distribution of power, the problem of responsibility (willingness to share it and to face up to
the consequences). Among the partners at the local, regional and national level there is still
prevalent a mutual distrust and little willingness to respect the other. Awareness of the
advantages of cooperation is clearly lacking.
77
We find ourselves in the phase of searching for models for cooperation between the regional
actors, appropriate to our traditions and culture.
78
LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Filip De Rynck 1,
Polytechnic Gent - University Antwerp, Preshoekstraat 27, Kortrijk, 8510 Belgium
E-mail: [email protected]
Introduction
The goal of this report is to assess the contribution of partnerships to improving governance
in the Czech Republic. While the Czech Republic is the first former communist country to
be reviewed as part of the OECD Study on Local Partnerships, it would surely be a mistake
to read this report as a comparison between the successful local partnerships in western
countries and the "amateurs" in economies in transition. The OECD study clearly
demonstrates that there is no such thing as the clear, linear and continuing success of local
partnerships in western countries. The OECD refers to a "potential yet to be fulfilled" and to
an "unreleased capacity to improve governance" (OECD, 2001).
Nor there is a uniform model for partnerships in western countries. The OECD study
shows that local partnerships are shaped by and are the product of a mixed and differentiated
set of determinants: government structure and the degree of modernisation; the economic
situation; political and civic culture and the importance of NGOs in society; the degree of
decentralisation; the features and culture of companies; the national or regional corporatist
traditions. The partnership concept covers a range of inter-organisational processes and
phenomena, from simple ad hoc consultation, traditional neo-corporatist co-operation, to the
long-term and stable exchange of inter-organisational resources in a viable and structured
organisation.
In order to examine the dynamics of partnership in a country it is necessary to study the
institutional and socio-economic factors. The first part of the report focuses on these factors
to help explain the general trend and the specific behaviour of local partners in the Czech
Republic. The second part adds more specific local and regional environmental factors and
looks for differences between regions (why are partnerships more successful in one area than
in another, how to explain the different formats and types of partnerships?). In the final part
we draw a number of conclusions and make preliminary recommendations.
A few dates from the recent History of the Czech Republic
1918: Independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire; birth of a lot of new civil
associations.
1948: Communist take-over; installation of national committees (national, regional, district and
local); hierarchical, government-oriented society; centralisation.
1989 (November): the Velvet revolution and renaissance of local government, abolition of
regions; pressure from and emergence of new political elites.
1
With the assistance of Neil McInroy (Centre for Local Economic Strategies, Manchester) and Anders
Östhol (Institute for Growth Policy Studies, Stockholm). For any comment on this report or on the
OECD Study on Local Partnerships, please contact Sylvain Giguere, Deputy Head of the LEED
Programme, OECD ([email protected]).
79
1990-1991: new legislation for municipalities and elections of local self-government.
1992 (December): new basic principles for territorial administration (the constitution).
1993 (January): separation of Czech Republic and Slovakia.
2000-2001: creation of 14 regions (Kraje) and first elections of regional governments.
Territorial units in the Czech Republic
Czech institutions widely use the territorial unit classification system (NUTS, for
Nomenclature des unités territoriales statistiques) developed for the European Union (EU)
by the European statistical agency (Eurostat). The territorial units of the Czech Republic are
listed below according to this typology:
NUTS I:
Country
NUTS II:
8 "cohesion regions" (or groups of Kraje)
NUTS III: 14 regions (Kraje)
NUTS IV: 77 districts
NUTS V:
6,244 municipalities
In addition, Czech institutions use the term "micro-region" for sub-regional areas smaller
than NUTS III regions that correspond to voluntary groupings of municipalities.
Source: Ministry of Regional Development.
PART I
CZECH SOCIETY AND PARTNERSHIPS
Economic situation and regional economics
General context
In 1995, all the Czech regions (at NUTS III level) had a level of GDP per capital lower
than 75 per cent of the average in the European Union (i.e. the main criterion for drawing
financial support from the EU for regions with severe structural problems -- Objective 1
structural funds). The city of Prague was in a significantly better situation, as GDP per
capita was 182 per cent of the national average (115 % of the EU average). Faced by the
combined effect of unfavourable demographic and social conditions, the rural areas have the
most severe economic problems.
The unemployment rate has grown dramatically in the last four years, from 2.9 per cent in
1995 to 9.0 per cent in 2000 (Government of the Czech Republic, 2000a). Unemployment
varies considerably from one area to another: in 2000, it was 20.7 per cent in the district of
Most and 2.8 per cent in the district of Prague-west. The proportion of long-term unemployed
is high: more than 50 per cent of the unemployed people in the industrial regions in
reconversion (60.5 % in Usti nad Labem, 59.1 % in Ostrava and 54.1 % in Olomouc).
The Czech Republic has inherited relatively small disparities differences from its past. The
system of communist central planning managed to balance regional differences mainly
through a policy of income redistribution and relocation of industry. The currently growing
disparities are a result of the transition of the Czech economy to free market principles
80
replacing the redistribution policy at central level. Differences are also increasing at
sub-regional level, both within regions and within districts (ibid.).
Industrial restructuring and development
The decline and restructuring of industry in traditional sectors has had a concentrated
impact in some regions, for example in Ostrava with the restructuring of the metallurgical
industry and in North-west Bohemia with the decline of coal mining.
Most large industrial and formerly state-owned companies now suffer from a lack of financial
resources and make investments from their own resources to a small extent only.
Investments are largely made on credit at high interest rates. The capital market is
underdeveloped and does not offer a significant alternative means of obtaining financing.
"The poor standard of technical equipment results in low labour productivity, poorly-valued
labour, a low standard of innovation and a low value-added output level" (ibid., p. 66). The
market environment lacks "cleaning mechanisms": badly-managed companies with large debts
and poor perspectives still survive. The level of innovation is low. There is a constant decline
in R&D expenditure with the closing down of many development centres in manufacturing
companies accompanied by a decline of employment in R&D. The greatest growth in
production among industrial companies is in those with foreign capital and under foreign
control. Long-term objectives prevail in these companies and their market value is growing.
Though small business is sometimes considered as a hopeful, dynamic and developing sector
(ibid.), policy has so far devoted too little attention to the conditions necessary to promote
the creation of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Various schemes to support the
development of SMEs are being implemented by the Ministry of Industry and Trade and the
Ministry for Regional Development, jointly with the Czech-Moravian Guarantee Bank 2,
although a lack of awareness hampers their results (OECD, 2002). The service industry is
growing, but regional distribution is concentrated in the bigger cities and urban areas.
Mainly composed of SMEs, it is not in a position to rapidly offset the problems in the most
afflicted regions.
Several official documents focus on the problems of public infrastructure, "neglected to a
considerable degree in the past" (ibid. p. 28). In particular there is a lack of important
transport connections "to support the growth of urban areas, to facilitate internal mobility and
to provide fast connections with other European countries. Priority now is given to motorway,
highway and transit railway corridor projects in regions which have close links with Prague,
while connections with other regions, such as East Bohemia and North Moravia (the Ostrava
region) to the national and international motorway network have been delayed, with all the
consequences for the development of these regions" (Ibid.).
Perspectives for economic development
The economy and economic policy are in the process of transition. The introduction of market principles has caused important problems in the regions dominated by industrial companies.
2
There are three major national programmes in the Czech Republic: a guarantee programme, a credit
programme and a small-loan programme. These schemes are complemented by a number of smaller
programmes to assist firms on business plans, marketing, co-operation, consulting and design.
Information on these programmes can be found in OECD (2002).
81
The general expectation is that their further restructuring will enlarge the disparities between
regions and increase unemployment.
In official documents the lack of a comprehensive national strategy to support SMEs has
been emphasised. In this connection, it is striking that the financial and human resources
devoted to R&D are declining. In many countries R&D is a fertile ground for the creation
of new local economic initiatives as a spin off of R&D. Also, the tradition of large and
state-owned companies has made a clear impact on the banking culture. Access to credit for
local business initiatives is not easy for individuals and SMEs. A "risk-taking" culture,
essential for setting up new SMEs, still has to be developed in society.
Research on economic development show that SMEs are dependent on the quality of their
environment (e.g. quality of labour, level of education, banking facilities, support of local
government) (see for example OECD, 1998). Policies towards SMEs, and complementary
regional and local initiatives, should be closely linked, and aim to enhance, the quality of
local development (Hull and Hjern, 1982). Poor attention is given to these considerations in
the Czech Republic although, in some regions, a positive attitude to SME can be observed
for instance with the support of local initiatives in tourism. Regional development, SMEs
and local economic initiatives are interrelated: the regional level opens up opportunities for
a more decentralised policy and better support for local initiatives. This could be part of the
national and regional strategy to promote SMEs, which surely demands co-operation
between the levels of government.
Public administration and regional politics
Modern public management is dominated by the search for effectiveness and efficiency
and a renewed search for legitimacy. "Governance" covers the efforts to engage the private
sector, NGOs and citizens in public policy activities. The shift from steering by hierarchy
(the "closed shop" -- government that looks to pursue its own programme) to more marketand network-steering (through partnerships) dominates the transformation of public
administration in most western countries.
While western countries are shifting from government to governance, the Czech Republic
is moving from its communist hierarchical heritage towards a stable democratic government
structure. It is quite understandable that Czech politicians place a priority on their own
organisation in order to demonstrate the ability of government to tackle problems.
Legitimacy of government has yet to be established. It is difficult to open up politics to
governance and partnership if public administration still has to prove that it can make a
difference and if there is general mistrust on the part of people in "going public".
The heritage of communism: cultural traditions
During the communist period, there were "committees" (in reality, state administration) at
each level of the administration (local, district, regional). Public administration and politics
were dominated by the totalitarian authority of the communist party apparat. After 1990 the
regional committees were abolished, the district became part of the state administration
and municipalities regained their autonomy.
The main heritage is not institutional but mainly cultural: public administration was dominated
by centralism, hierarchy and an absence of choice and public accountability for decades. It
82
is relatively easy to reform institutions, but changing public attitudes is much more difficult.
Decentralisation and regionalisation are part of that change: they can encourage people and
institutions to take more responsibility and to develop a more pro-active attitude. But the
cultural history is still present and is, in general, an impeding factor for partnerships.
Local government
Local self-government was abolished after World War II and replaced by local committees.
During the communist period the number of municipalities was reduced from 11,000 to
4,100. A number of municipalities have retrieved their jurisdiction since the Velvet
Revolution (bringing the total now to 6,231).
Competencies
Municipalities are mainly responsible for infrastructures and environmental services: local
roads and street lighting, water supplies, drainage, sewage treatment, refuse collection and
disposal, parks and other recreational and cultural facilities, cemeteries, public transport.
Housing responsibilities include the management and repair of publicly-owned housing.
Municipalities also determine applications for planning permission. Land use plans must
nevertheless be in accord across levels of government (the new act of regions gives the
regions responsibility for land use at regional level and both levels legally have an equal
status). Municipalities license business activities, and administer markets, libraries, fire
protection, cultural centres, children's nurseries and sports facilities.
If some of the basic principles and procedures remain unmodified since the communist
period, for instance for spatial planning, the situation is different for other, new, powers,
such as local development. There is only a very limited tradition in preparing local
development strategies and their preparation is at the complete discretion of the respective
municipalities. Consequently, "the structure, aims and quality of local development strategies
differ enormously" across areas (Blazek, 1999, p. 8). The biggest problems with local
development strategies are related to their slow implementation and poor evaluation.
There seems to be little official support, advice and help for local governments in this field.
Much depends on the municipalities' own initiative. This is of course a flourishing business
for private consultants but this does not improve the capacity of local governments to
respond to development problems. As it will be seen below, municipalities are often very
weakly linked with the regional development agencies.
Coping with local fragmentation
Local government is fragmented. Ninety per cent of municipalities have less than 2000
inhabitants and the majority is concentrated are rural areas. The current economic trends
increase disparities with urban areas, as mentioned above. The large number of municipalities
and their low critical mass cause two problems: i) a huge gap between their resources and
investment needs, and ii) very limited human resources ("many small villages do not even
have the personnel to read new legislative texts", ibid., p. 4).
The fragmentation of local government is mitigated by a network of "arm's length" agencies
for most public services (e.g. water supply, refuse collection, cultural services) working on a
more appropriate scale (Davey, 1996). "In practice they (a group of municipalities) share the
services of the various arm's length companies. Typically these serve a town and its
83
surrounding villages, and have been largely supervised by the district or central town
municipalities" (Ibid., p. 54). Most companies existed in communist times, were quasiautonomous and led by central persons in the party, so their relations with municipalities were
not one of a principal (local government delegating the implementation) and an agent (the
semi-autonomous service responsible for the implementation). Now municipalities can
choose how to organise their services as they are no longer compelled to use those companies.
Those agency companies are very uneven in the quality of their management. The
traditional relationship was not geared to obtaining "value for money", and standard management
tools (e.g. performance management, quality control) have rarely been implemented. The
basic instruments for a good relationship between municipalities and those agencies are still
to be developed (ibid.).
Statutory cities and authorised municipalities
The existence of the so-called "statutory cities" in the Czech Republic is worth noting.
"These (16) cities have the right to determine their internal problems and the matters of
management by a generally binding degree (the Statutes)" (Government of the Czech
Republic, 2000b, p. 7). These statutory cities have a broader range of powers than ordinary
municipal authorities and "in the case of delegated powers (state administration), the authorisation
of a municipality to execute state administration for another municipality or for several
municipalities exceeds the territorial limits of the delegated municipality, which is not
possible within the framework of self-administration". These powers are executed by the
mayor. Execution of delegated powers for other municipalities is not only the case for statutory
cities. In each micro-region, an authorised municipality usually executes delegated powers
for neighbouring small villages.
The local fiscal system
Blazek (1999 and 2000) describes the local financial and fiscal system as a process of trial
and error, which changes frequently. Different systems have succeeded themselves from
1990 to the present and yet a new system is planned.
An important change was introduced in January 2001, closely linked to the establishment
of self-governing regions. This new system categorising municipalities according to size of
population and assigning each group with a coefficient (higher for larger municipalities and
cities responsible for outlying areas) has the effect of promoting amalgamation to obtain a
higher coefficient. While the strengths and weaknesses of this system are being discussed,
a new change has been announced for 2002. The frequent and drastic changes of the local
financial system hinder multi-annual investment plans, mainly in infrastructure, an urgent
need in most micro-regions.
Blazek describes the continuing changes as a search to find a solution to the trade-off
between the principles of solidarity and meritocracy. The new system results in the extensive redistribution of resources towards the bigger municipalities and hence favours solidarity at the expense of merits. "The incentives for municipalities to encourage employment
creation and business support on their territories are extremely limited" (Blazek, 2000, p. 9).
Capital investments
Municipalities recovered properties from the pre-communist period (before 1948 municipalities
84
owned substantial quasi-commercial assets such as shopping centres, premises, dairies and
laundries. "Faced with the prospect of subsidising loss-making enterprises, repairing crumbling buildings and finding capital to complete pretentious complexes ('white elephants'),
many local authorities have sought to sell their newly acquired property as quickly as possible
for whatever it will fetch" (Davey, 1996, p. 53). Towns in particular sold their shares in
regional energy companies.
The municipalities have allocated parts of these revenues to new and demanding
infrastructure investments, which have become the priority. The central government also
helped in offering significant grants for investments. The sum of investments of local
governments has exceeded the investments of central government. This represents an important
contribution of local governments to economic development, although at the expense of
growing local debt.
A tool: public-private partnerships (PPP)
To develop and manage infrastructures, municipalities in western countries often make
concessions to the private sector in the form of contracting relationships. Alternatively, they
may set up a mixed organisation with the private sector for the autonomous management of
infrastructure or services. Both techniques are known as public-private partnership (PPP).
PPPs need a solid legal framework to operate. Czech legislation does not seem
favourable towards local PPP. Municipalities can perform profit-generating activities as a
legal entity, not subject to business tax (the State returns the tax paid by local governments).
This provision is widely-used -- and exceeds the amount of revenues generated by the
property tax -- but if municipalities set up a separate legal entity in the form of PPP or in
100 percent ownership, there is no similar incentive. "This means that the legislation (…)
restricts PPP to spheres where the profits can be reinvested: this is hardly acceptable for
private firms" (Blazek, 1999, p. 15).
The districts
Only an administrative level?
At district level, state administration is fully executed by the district offices (law 425),
headed by chief officers and consisting of individual departments. Their main activities are
performing state administration in matters designated by special laws and supervising the
decisions of the municipal authority and the municipal economy.
After the communist period, in 1993-2000, the district level was also political: there was a
council composed of representatives of the municipalities. The chief activities of that
district assembly included the distribution of appropriations among individual municipal
budgets. The former situation, but also the current cpowers, resemble the French practice of
close networks between local politicians, local public officials and the state offices of the prefect. The French prefects (or district directors in the Czech case) are important intermediaries or
brokers between local policies and state policy. Of course, the qualities of networks at
district level are contingent upon local and personal characteristics.
Although the former political structure of the district was abolished (see below), the
relationship between municipalities and the district officers has not disappeared. This may
explain part of the attitudes of municipalities in the district-regional debate (see further on).
85
Municipalities are more familiar with the districts, which offered concrete support and an
entry to central ministries. The regions however represent a new political factor, and local
politicians can use this also as leverage to strengthen their position.
State administration
The districts are part of the state administration, at sub-regional level, but not all
sub-regional state administration is part of the district organisation. A number of ministries
have established their own branch offices at district level (financial services, land registry,
police and justice), removing their responsibilities and their budgets from the direct control
of the district office. They are not concerned about the plan to abolish the district administration
by the end of 2002.
The district authority in its present form is largely concerned with employment, education
and social services. Economic development issues are not addressed by district offices (nor
by any other de-concentrated or decentralised state administration at sub-regional level).
The district labour office
The state administration plays a strong role in the implementation of labour market policy
at sub-regional level through the district labour office. These offices offer all the employment
and social services for unemployed people and people with social needs (e.g. placement,
counselling, training, social benefits, support for business start-ups and self-employed initiatives).
The staff varies according to the size of the service area: from 100 staff members (in districts
with 100,000 inhabitants) to 40 (smaller ones). Statistics on the use of measures are
produced every month, and evaluation reports every six months.
"Consultation" belongs to the standard instruments of the districts to promote an effective
use of its measures. Its use has been promoted by European pre-adhesion programmes. Each
district office has a consultative committee (grouping together social partners, employers,
schools, financial institutions), which is legally obliged to hold one meeting every month.
The main task of the committee is the allocation of subsidies to the employers applying to
the various schemes available. The district officer is free to set up further co-operation
mechanisms.
One of the districts co-ordinates the other districts in NUTS III regions and an advisory
committee of directors supports the co-ordination. Programmes on NUTS III level are
subsidised from the budget of the national department (Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs).
The future of the districts
The district offices till now have been legal entities with relatively broad flexibility. Over
the period 1993-2000, the districts financed their expenditures through a share of income tax.
Since 2001, they receive transfers from the State budget. The Act on district authorities remains
in force until 31 December 2002. Under the reform, the most important administrative functions
of district authorities are due to be taken over by 180 larger cities, by regions or by special
administrative courts.
Education is an area where cpowers were already transferred in 2001. Elected regional
assemblies at NUTS III level have become the owners (managers) of the vast majority of
schools (including practically all secondary schools). However, it is unclear if this task will
be enlarged to a planning role. Meanwhile, the district authorities have taken on more
86
administrative responsibilities in this field (financing schools, textbooks, student-aids, costs
related to continuing education of teachers).
The new plans are still the object of fierce controversies. The regional restructuring goes
to the heart of the administrative system. Such operations lead to long-lasting administrative
uncertainty that harm the effectiveness of public administration. A lot of energy is spent on
so-called "office-politics" (the battle of the bureaucrats). Although the regionalisation offers
new opportunities for governance (see following part), it may also generate some damaging
effects.
The regions
"Structural changes in societies have their spatial dimensions (…). The regional structure
is remoulded by societal changes and it is itself one of the elements in societal change (…).
The regional structure acts as a moderator of societal change (…) and also defines developmental potentials, the relative advantages of different regions and, in this sense, is an active
factor in the societal transformation" (Illner, 1995, p. 46). We witness only the first stage of
the Czech regionalisation process, mixed up with several other elements of transformation (e.g.
the free market effects, the influence of the European Union, reform of taxation, political
dynamics).
The processes of regionalisation and the creation of political and administrative regions for
"self-government" have the "regional" element in common, but they do not have the same
ambitions. Regionalisation often refers to the elaboration of planning systems leading to the
better adaptation of national policies to regional conditions. It is characterised by a "top-down"
approach often supported by a well-structured dialogue between administration, trade unions
and organisations of employers and by the de-concentration of administration. In part, this
corresponds to the situation of the Czech Republic, especially symbolised in the approach for
the first generation of programming for the European pre-adhesion programmes at NUTS II
level (see further on).
The creation of a political regional level (NUTS III) in the Czech Republic also aims at
stimulating "bottom-up" dynamics and changing the democratic and probably also the political
structure of a country. It leads to debates on decentralisation, subsidiarity and autonomy.
This is the story of constructing a democratic society, giving citizens and local actors responsibility for the general interest of their area. This is the second part of the Czech regional
case.
Both parts of the case are inter-related: processes of regionalisation affect regional
ambitions and dialogue between local actors, they can influence perceptions on scales and
the regional potential and they can be the trigger for the political ambitions of an area. The
Czech Republic demonstrates the close relationship between the two rationales.
Regional economic structure
The economic structure of the regions is heavily related to the country's heritage of
communist policy. Illner (1995) describes the main features of the communist heritage of
regional development:
- a redistribution towards the eastern parts of Czechoslovakia and the marginalisation of the
regions along the German and Austrian borders;
87
- socialist industrialisation strengthened the mono-structural character of industrial
agglomerations, making them extremely vulnerable, creating social problems and
environmental damage, especially in North-west Bohemia and North Moravia;
- collectivisation of agriculture changed land use and the settlement system (rural settlements
without function, losing residents and transformed into recreational villages);
- priority for housing construction in city suburbs, remaining inner cities in urgent need of
renewal;
- infrastructure, transport and telecommunications, especially with the west, were neglected
(considered as "non-productive" services);
- the sector-branch system and the big industrial services prevailed over the territorial
organisation and the decision-making of self-government.
"The Czech Republic entered the period of post-communist transformation with a polarised
regional structure, over-industrialised urban agglomeration, underdeveloped infrastructure,
polluted environment and over-centralised territorial administration. The dynamics have
been shifting toward the east (Moravia) to the detriment of the west (Bohemia), that part (historically the stronger macro-region) acquired the character of an "old" industrial region"
(ibid., p. 49).
After 1989, societal transformation in the Czech Republic began to change the regional
structure (ibid., p. 50). The following factors came into play:
- Restoration of economic dynamism in the western part, due to the changing geopolitical
position of border regions capitalising their proximity to western countries, the eastern part
now becoming more marginal (also due to the split of the country);
- Changes in land ownership (price of land co-determined now by the market, sub-urbanisation,
selective out-migration in former housing projects);
- Restructuring of economic activity is spatially selective (booming service sector in the
cities, reduced production in mono-industrial regions).
This leads to the following typology of the regional potentials (ibid., p. 53):
-
development opportunities for border regions, mainly in the west;
deteriorating opportunities for regions with declining industries;
good opportunities for regions with diversified economic structures;
better opportunities for regions with privatised businesses;
handicaps for polluted regions (North-west Bohemia, North Moravia), potential for South
Bohemia.
The driving forces of regionalisation
Scholars agree that the growing regional disparities and the economic decline in general
are one explanation for the growing awareness of the need for a regional planning system.
"Central Czech authorities only react in individual cases where intervention is inevitable
because of a critical situation (high unemployment or extreme pollution) has arisen (ibid., p.
51). The small interregional disparities as a product of the communist regime in the
beginning of the 1990s explain the slow start. "There were regional disparities but the
problems were not considered to be serious enough to stimulate the central government
towards the establishment of a regional policy adapted to the problems of the different areas"
(Brizova and Maryska, 2000).
88
When the need for a more pro-active system became urgent, the problems of an un-coordinated
administration became clearer. This was an important stimulant for the administration to
change in order to tackle the institutional fragmentation and the lack of horizontal coordination ("the main problem was the total lack of co-ordination between the central
departments. And also the co-ordination with the other levels of government was
unsatisfactory" (ibid.)).
If the first reason to establish a regional system was mainly economic and institutional, the
second one was more political: the urge to re-establish of democracy and promote local and
regional initiatives (Blazek, 1999). The bottom-up pressure to tackle economic problems
prompted the national government to act in a more pro-active way and to strengthen public
responsibility. "The objective of these changes is an effort to make the public administration
more democratic by transferring some of the State functions to self-governing bodies on the
one hand, and by bringing administrative decisions closer to taxpayers on the other hand"
(Government of the Czech Republic, 2001a, p. 2).
A third reason has to do with geopolitics. Interviews revealed how influential the
European Union was for administrative structures and culture in one of the states wishing to
become member of the Union. Although the European Union may not be the main factor, it
certainly played the role of a trigger for the transformation of the regional system.
A corollary: the development of RDAs
The growing regional problems (mid-1990s) first resulted in the creation of regional
development agencies (RDAs), mainly on the basis of private local initiatives (chambers of
commerce) and the support of local government. The activities of the RDAs are: collection
and data processing on the region, support for investors, organisation and assistance of projects
for industrial estates, technical advice for companies, support for governments in economic
planning, promotion of the region. As they are only supported by the State in a few cases,
most RDAs have suffered from a lack of resources, experience and qualified staff, as well as
respect among local actors. However, this analysis varies across areas and depends on local
circumstances: "the position of the RDA in Ostrava is much stronger due to backing from the
self-government authority of the large city dominating the whole region of Ostrava. On the
other hand, the position of the RDA in Most (North-west Bohemia) is much weaker,
partly because of competition from several cities of approximately equal size" (Blazek,
1999, p. 10).
A major impetus for the creation of new RDAs recently was the anticipation of the creation
of the 14 regions and surely the preparation for the European pre-accession adhesion funds 3.
In many cases, RDAs have been involved in the design and implementation of programmes
3
There are three instruments assisting the applicant countries until they join the EU:
PHARE: consolidation of institutions, participation in EU programmes, regional and social development,
industrial restructuring and development of the small-business sector;
ISPA (Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession): development of transport and environmental
infrastructure;
SAPARD (Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development): modernisation of
agriculture and rural development.
89
and projects funded through these schemes. Now "at least one RDA is operating in each
of the 14 regions" (ibid., p. 11). Some of the RDAs built up their first planning and field
experiences with European Union programmes . This is a power-resource, for instance in
relation to the new regional administration (see further on).
The EU impulse
Following the Czech Republic's application for EU membership, the European
Commission stated that the Czech Republic had no regional policy, there were no coordination mechanisms at national level, no effective instruments and financial resources
for regional development, and no legal, administrative and budgeting framework for integrated regional policy (Government of the Czech Republic, 2000a, p. 35). The judgement was
sharp. The structures had to be prepared to fit the requirement of European regional policy:
regional and sectoral planning and programming documents, support frameworks and
co-finance systems, organisational institutions and regional committees, applying the
principles of subsidiarity and partnership (ibid.).
The EU influence had probably its most important effects on the restructuring of the
national level, on the emergence of a new level of institution and on new types of consultation
structures established at regional level:
- creation of the Ministry for Regional Development (MRD) and a supporting Centre for
Regional Development at ministry level (1996);
- implementation of EU pre-accession support: creation of a National Programming and
Monitoring Committee for Economic and Social Cohesion at national level; creation of the
eight cohesion regions at NUTS II level and establishment in each region of a partnership
structure, the regional management and monitoring committees (RMMC), to help with
planning and programme implementation;.
- creation of regional co-ordinating committees (RCCs) to prepare regional development
plans (RDP) in the new 14 NUTS III regions (Kraje), ahead of the election of selfgovernments;
- enactment of the Regional Development Act (basic documents: 235/8-4-1988 and
248/2000) on 1 January 2001.
The regional management and monitoring committees (now abolished) at NUTS II level consisted mainly of the tripartite partners in the regions (key politicians, trade unions, entrepreneurs).
Representatives of the NGOs participated in a different way according to their regional position and strength. The RMMCs were the first "official" partnership structures based on the
European Union model. Although top-down structures, the RMMCs stimulated the regional planning processes, depending on the characteristics of the regions. They offered the first
officially-recognised framework for discussion on regional priorities and gave legitimacy to
the processes.
The regional co-ordinating committees (also abolished, due to the election of regional
assemblies) at NUTS III level were mainly composed of representatives of state
administration, municipalities and social partners. In some regions the elaboration of the
regional development plans (RDP) was dominated by technicians and the members of the
committee, in other regions the public debate was more open and interactive (see the case of
the region of Vysocina in Part II). The committees opened up the minds for strategic
90
planning and installed the concept of partnership, although the concept itself was in most
regions mainly interpreted in a more formal way (consultation of interest groups for the
elaboration of public programmes dominated by public authorities).
The current planning system
The official planning system based on the Regional Development Act can be described as
follows, at three levels of action: national, NUTS II and NUTS III.
National level: the Ministry of Regional Development
The Ministry of Regional Development (MRD) created at national level has the following
duties. It: i) sets forward the goals of regional development and the criterion for selection of
regions; ii) builds up a Regional Development Strategy, co-ordinates and ensures monitoring
of regional development activities; iii) approves the regional development programmes at
NUTS II and NUTS III level; and iv) establishes a Management and Co-ordination
Committee (MCC) at national level;
NUTS II level: the cohesion regions
The eight "cohesion regions" (at NUTS II level) have a regional council, securing the
implementation of programmes and responsible for effective usage of such means. The
council collects data and ensures evaluation system. In the five cohesion regions with more
than one NUTS III region, the council is elected by the boards of representatives of the
NUTS III regions. In cohesion regions coinciding with one NUTS III region, the function of
the council shall be fulfilled by the boards of representatives of the NUTS III region under
transferred authority.
The council of the cohesion region has competence for: i) the pre-accession programmes
and structural funds (the council is the managing authority); ii) establishing the regional
development committee, the selection commissions and the executive section; and iii)
proposing to the Ministry a deputy to the MCC.
The regional development committee, installed by the council of the cohesion region,
monitors and evaluates the implementation of aid provided from the funds; and submits to
the council proposals for solutions and further steps to be taken. Representatives of NUTS
III regions, municipalities, administrative offices, entrepreneurs, trade unions, NGOs and
other partners are members of the committees.
NUTS III level: a new level of representative democracy
The new regional administrations came into force on 1 January 2001, soon after the first
regional elections took place, in November 2000. The elected assemblies of the new
self-governing regions (Kraje) support regional development in co-operation with other
authorities at central and local level (ministries, district offices, municipalities). They design
regional development programmes, to be submitted first to the council of the cohesion
region. Act 129/2000 concerning the regions summarises the competencies of the regions.
Regions are allowed to:
- present proposals to the national parliament;
- approve spatial planning plans;
- co-ordinate educational, social and health care services;
91
- administer roads (second and third class) and traffic policies;
- design policies in the field of environment.
Regional controversies
The new regions are the result of a fierce political debate. We summarised above the main
driving forces and official motives for setting up the regions. Major objections were also
made, by fear of increased bureaucracy and of a new dualism between the two historical
lands (Bohemia and Moravia).
Both concepts of "region" and "land" are present in Czech academic literature: "while lands
(Bohemia, Moravia with Silesia) ceased formally to exist in 1949, they partly survive as
cultural entities and also in the memory of parts of the population. Moreover, there is pressure
to re-introduce them as political and administrative entities" (Illner, 1995, p. 47). Davey
notes that particular regions in the Czech Republic have aspirations for a quasi-federal
status, "a product both of historical identities and of the proximity of the German model"
(Davey, 1996, p. 50).
The number and scale of the 14 regions reflect a political compromise. "There is some
doubt for some regions, but in general we can say that the NUTS III regions coincide with
the 'natural' scale of the city centres dominating the regions" (Brizova and Maryska, 2000).
Not all the people interviewed in this study subscribe to this view. And the reverse question
remains open: can the new political elite create a new regional identity and social capital? Is
the scale suited for effective public policies and to build up administrative capacity?
The public interest for the first regional elections was low (32.2 % of the electorate), raising
the issue of the compatibility of scale and regional identity: "one of the most important
obstacles towards regional planning is the lack of sympathy and interest of the people and
the non-existing regional identity of citizens" (ibid.). Citizens, however have to be
convinced by products and outputs. So it is far too early to conclude that there is a lack of
belief in the region .
The creation of the cohesion regions was made necessary due to the fact that NUTS III
regions were considered too small for the efficient implementation of European programmes.
The creation is also considered by some as a tool for central ministries to maintain regional
influence. NUTS II regions are sometimes viewed as bargaining platforms between the
regional politicians and the central ministries.
The "third sector"
History and status quaestionis
The history of non-profit activity goes back to the Middle Ages and for centuries was closely
connected with the Catholic Church. The Church lost much of its power (18th century) and
non-profit activity became secular. The main impulse for development came with the National
Revival (19th century), culminating in the establishment of an independent state (1918) and the
"Golden Age" of civil-society associations before the Second World War (Fric et al., 2000).
4
The Czech parliament rejected a recent proposal (2002) to reshape territorial units according to the
wishes of some municipalities to shift from one region to another, such as those in the Moravska
Trebova-Jevicko micro-region (OECD, 2002).
92
The communist take-over in 1948 severely limited independent activity. All legal
organisations were federated in the National Front and in the Communist Party at different
levels. Trade unions and professional associations received generous state subsidies in return
for strict control by the Party. A wide range of organisations in the area of culture, sport,
hobbies got support. Critical organisations were oppressed and there were no independent
organisations.
After 1989 the number of NGOs exploded (44,378 organisations with approximately
6,660,000 members in 1995) (ibid.). New non-profit organisations play a more independent
role and some of them also function as a civic opposition to the party-political system.
Today, NGOs cover a wide range of organisations, from very specialised ones (conservation
of monuments, professional training) to organizations with a wide scope and a more general
goal (related to the development of a region or civil society), from the traditional neocorporatist organisations to organisations working in the alternative cultural spheres.
NGOs and legitimacy
Politicians in the Czech Republic often prefer to keep their distance from the NGO world.
Research suggests a number of arguments for this:
- Old and new organisations work in the same sector with different modes of operations,
different perceptions of their role in society. Sometimes the relation resembles the Cold
War atmosphere, as battles are waged for resources and influence within the sector.
- There was a lack of professionalism and there were a number of abuses. NGOs only
recently started to set up a system of self-regulation (code of ethics, separation of
administration and governance of the NGO). Up to very recently, less than half of NGOs
had a board of directors.
- There used to be no effective umbrella organisations at the different levels of administration,
so there was no legitimate representation. But "in the last two or three years there has
been a process of integration. As a result there are now several effective umbrella
organisations, for example in the areas of culture, the environment and social services as
well as seven community coalitions throughout the country" (ibid., p. 8). Old organisations
are not engaged in those new co-ordination structures and they maintain their traditional
networking activities.
In recent years, the following steps can be seen as positive: a national structure of
NGOs, a structured form of representation at regional level (with regular conferences) and
representation of (some) NGOs in the regional development institutions. These new modes
of organisation, however, are restricted to the new NGOs.
Policy for NGOs
The European influence and its partnership concept (projects designed in partnership are
generally privileged with regard to financial support from EU institutions) combined with the
creation of the Ministry for Regional Development have increased official attention towards
NGOs. The participation of NGOs in regional and sectoral plans is now made obligatory.
One per cent of the revenues from the operation of privatisation must be attributed to
NGOs. But for years NGOs have been neglected by government policy. "While the
commercial and public sectors have enjoyed considerable attention and significant financial
93
support from all sectors of society during the transformation process, the non-profit sector
has been given little consideration and its development has been severely under-financed"
(ibid.). This situation has gradually improved during the past few years, with new legislation
and more financial support. The situation is better for those NGOs active in "visible"
sectors to the public, such as environmental protection or conservation. To some extent,
those NGOs are executing public functions and work in a quasi-contractual relation with
government.
Approximately 55 to 60 per cent of financial support for NGOs comes from the State.
"State funding for NGOs has remained essentially unchanged since communist times. It is
a very centralised system with less than one sixth of funds allocated via regional and local
bodies. Funding sometimes depends on the size of membership and on the discretion of
individual public officials. Payments are made on an annual basis and delays are frequent.
Sports and recreational organisations obtain the lion's share of support (there is no distinction
between organisations that work for the benefit of society and those that serve mainly their
own members" (ibid.).
PART II
CASE STUDIES
This part of the report analyses the partnership experience in three areas of the Czech
Republic: i) the cohesion region of North-west Bohemia (NUTS II), and more particularly
its district of Most (NUTS IV) in the region of Usti nad Labem (NUTS III), ii) the region of
Vysocina (NUTS III) and iii) the micro-region of Pøerov (region of Olomouc). This selection
of areas, agreed by the Ministry of Regional Development and the OECD, provides a
representative sample of conditions for the development of partnerships in the Czech
Republic. The analysis is based on a study visit to the three areas conducted on 11-15 June
2001, on background material as well as on academic research and literature.
The case of North-west Bohemia
The concept of partnership
In the region of North-west Bohemia (NUTS II), and more particularly in the district of
Most (region of Usti nad Labem), the concept of partnership is used for:
- the economic and social council (ESC): a network of the most important actors of the
district, mainly involving the social partners;
- projects by NGOs carried out in co-operation with the district labour office;
- local economic initiatives: the Business Centre of Litvinov (a business incubation
managed by the chamber of commerce and municipality, with the support of the State);
- an educational project of the chamber of commerce, implemented in partnership by
entrepreneurs, schools, the district labour office and municipalities, aiming to identify and
fulfil needs for the skilled labour force;
94
- the inter-municipal co-operation in the Ore Mountain micro-region, aimed at developing
tourism activities;
- an independent private school offering tailor-made training programmes in co-operation
with local private companies (run without support of public authorities).
A very specific economic history
North-west Bohemia was, and still is, dominated by heavy industry. It has been severely
damaged by the brown coal industry. The dramatic environmental situation was a major
problem for the European Union adhesion, which provided a strong incentive to tackle those
problems. In some areas, such as the district of Most, there has been a remarkable
reconversion, with significant land recovery operations supported by massive state intervention
(e.g. hippodrome, vineyards, car-racing circuit). The dominant concept of partnership in this
industrial district refers to more traditional tripartite coalitions, as illustrated by the ESC.
The industrial character, the massive problem of unemployment and the prominence of the
ESC are determinant for partnership relations in the area.
Region of Usti nad Labem: some statistics
Population: 827,000 inhabitants (1999).
Urbanisation: 40 per cent of inhabitants live in cities (nation-wide: 10 %).
Agriculture and forestry: second lowest percentage in the country, industry and building sector
are above-average, service sector living up to the nation-wide average.
Industry: dominated by brown coal.
Unemployment: 15.3 per cent (20 % in the district of Most) in 2000.
Source: Ministry for Regional Development.
The RMMC impact
The regional management and monitoring committee operating in North-west Bohemia no
longer exists (2000), but made a useful development plan for the implementation of
pre-accession funds. The ESCs working in the region still operate within the framework of
this plan. The plan puts emphasis on public infrastructure, restructuring of industry and
investment in new businesses, attracting foreign investors, new industrial estates, watermanagement and public health infrastructure. It is an example of a traditional development
approach led by the most powerful actors: trade unions, large state-owned companies,
chambers of commerce, supported by the mayors of the most important cities (such as Most).
The RMMC period has had positive effects: putting people together in a structure, stimulating
the strategic planning process for the area, directing the central budgets to a set of priorities.
In particular, the RMMC provided an incentive for NGOs to enter the economic arena and it
stimulated their self-organisation, as NGOs organised conferences to elect their representatives
in the RMMC. Thus, although the RMMC was a structure created from the "top", it
activated planning processes and bottom-up initiatives.
The RMMC was abolished in 2000 and the tasks were officially taken over by the two
new regional assemblies, as well as to the regional council and the regional development
committee that the assemblies set up (see Part I). Due to the organisational weakness of the
regions at their inception, the planning process was in practice taken over by the dominant
network of the ESCs at district level.
95
The ESC: a win-win solution to prevent further loss
The economic and social councils are tripartite organisations at district level, united in the
regional council at NUTS II level. In Most, the ESC is run by a staff of four people (two
with an academic degree). Members of the council are: cities, companies, trade unions, State
administration, chambers of commerce. The council works with several committees (e.g.
education, investment, infrastructure). As one achievement, the council created a fund,
sponsored by Chemopetrol and Coal Mining, both state-owned companies, which allowed
the development of a number of reconversion projects. Chemopetrol is engaged in an important
process of restructuring with a possible loss of 1,000 jobs for low-skilled people.
The chairman of the ESC of the district of Most is senator Falbr, a central figure in the
tripartite networks and at the central political level. His role cannot be underestimated. This
resembles a classic phenomenon: much depends on one or two key figures who make use of
their networks to help the local agenda to make progress.
ESC and RDA: working apart together
There are three regional development agencies in North-west Bohemia: in Karlovy Vary,
Most and in the city of Usti nad Labem. The RDA of Most has a total capacity of 18 persons.
The RDA played an important role in the preparation of the European programmes: the
RMMC was the programming committee, but the RDA did the preparatory work. The
relation between RDA and ESC seemed to be more antagonistic than co-operative. The ESC
is based on the large participation of important actors and acts as a "parliament" of the district.
The council activates projects, provides money, based on voluntary engagement.
The RDA is run like a company: it sells services (to municipalities, districts, companies)
on a profitable base. It uses its experience with European programmes as a power resource
in relation to the ESC, less equipped to manage those programmes. Being the officiallyappointed management unit of the European programmes is an important source of power
and income for the RDA. All those elements explain the impression that for key ESC
persons, the RDA is an "unwanted but inevitable secretary".
The envoy: a tailor-made institution for a priority region
In 2000, the central government installed the "government envoy", a new de-concentrated
service of the Ministry for Regional Development, with a staff of 10 people, in North-west
Bohemia, one of the two priority areas. The activities of the envoy are oriented towards
infrastructure projects (roads, railroads, waterways, industrial zones, management of water
systems).
The added value of the envoy is the more direct relation between the region and the central
government, generating more means and better co-ordination of national policies in the
region. Apart from this latter impact, the envoy has no clear impact on local governance.
The envoy is mainly engaged in the large infrastructure projects. There is no evidence of
any organic bottom-up partnership being assisted by the envoy, nor of involvement of
representatives from civil society or private sector in the strategic orientations defined, nor
of any relation with employment and social policy. The role of the envoy in relation to the
regional level is an open question, also due to the recent start of the region. The agenda is,
for the moment, clearly dominated by central government.
96
NGOs: no open relation with other actors
The NGOs often have contacts with the district labour office for projects they carry out, on
creating jobs for young unemployed and unskilled people. However, subventions for social
projects are degressive (after one year, they decreased by half). NGOs lack the financial
capacities to compensate this reduction.
The NGOs of this area find it hard to establish constructive relationships with the labour
office. The general evaluation by NGOs of the labour office is often negative: bureaucratic,
rule-oriented, centralised, defensive style, poor management capacities, expensive costs for
training courses (organised in Prague). The labour office picture of the NGOs is not flattering either: lack of openness of NGOs, misuse of funds, no financial responsibility, lack of
management. The perception by NGOs of municipalities is also rather negative: not an open
attitude towards co-operation, a "we are elected"-culture. The perception of NGOs on behalf
of the mayors is similar to those between the labour office and NGOs.
In the region of Usti nad Labem, nearly 5400 NGOs are active and the RDA helped them
create a centre to network the NGOs. While this project (a cross-border European project
with a Dutch province) is a source of income for the RDA, it does not lead to comprehensive
networking between RDA and NGOs. The sample of NGOs met as part of this study were
not aware of this project.
Conclusion
In this area dominated by severe economic problems, the partnership concept is related to
tripartite consultation, bargaining and personal networks. The will to co-operate dominates
the relationship between municipalities, trade unions and entrepreneurs. The programmes
and plans are inspired by a traditional economic approach mainly based on public initiative,
infrastructure and inward investment.
Under the impulse of European programmes, steps are taken toward more comprehensive
strategic planning as new partners are integrated in the process. Yet more needs to be done.
Only the bigger municipalities are engaged and even they lack the capacity to take a leading role.
The relation between RDA and ESC hinders the efficient combination of the potentials of
both organisations. The ESC has potentials in networking and bringing together resources.
The RDA has potentials in the field of planning techniques, expertise in European
programmes and experience with advice for companies. Yet their governance attitude totally
differs: the ESC is based on general interest and voluntary engagement, the RDA is dominated
by a profit-oriented management style.
The partnership concept is weakly developed in the field of employment and social policy.
There are some examples of co-operation between the public administration (labour office)
and NGOs but those types of co-operation are formal and there is no open dialogue between
the two partners. They need each other's resources but they co-operate "face off". It is merely
a relationship based on service delivery, not on co-ordination and strategic planning.
The case of the Vysocina (Jihlava) region
The concept of partnership
The concept of partnership in this case is used for:
97
- the preparation of a strategic plan for regional development prepared by the former RCC
as guideline for the activities of the new regional authority (NUTS III);
- concrete projects implemented in partnership derived from that strategic plan: social
projects involving the district labour office, NGOs and municipalities; investment projects
involving municipalities and chambers of commerce;
- working methods developed by the new region in view of better governance: mixed
committees (statutory committees of the council) with the former partners of the strategic
planning process;
- specific projects based on the engagement of NGOs for healthcare, youth policy, social
policy for disabled people, the management of ecological zones.
The region: an open culture for strategic planning
This large region has been created somewhat artificially and renamed, from Jihalava to
Vysocina. It consists of five districts, which share differences in culture and identity (some
districts are parts of historic Bohemia and some of Moravia). One of the open questions is
the relation with the powerful Brno NUTS III region in the common NUTS II region
Jihovychod. Centralisation at NUTS II level is a danger but it is also possible that this brings
the partners at NUTS III level (in Vysocina) closer together.
Region of Vysocina: some statistics
Population: 522,486 inhabitants (1998).
Economic structure: while there has been a sharp decrease in the number of farm and forestry
workers, agriculture still remains the region's strongest economic sector. Food processing and
leather manufacturing are other strong sectors.
Gross domestic product per capita is lower (80 % of national average) and average monthly
salary is the lowest among all the regions.
Unemployment: 7.5 per cent (2001).
Source: Ministry of Regional Development
Apart from the identity issue, many questions surround the start of the new self-government
region: the financial means and the tax competencies, the relation with district reform and
with the autonomy of the municipalities for their self-government activities. One of the
interviewees summarised the financial issue as follows: "regions have no money yet, districts
have no money anymore, municipalities never had money". This lack of its own resources
forces the region to build up legitimacy by involving other actors in the design of plans and
programmes.
The regional administration is very small for the moment: 80 staff members for the
combination of self-government and administration. This is an extremely modest capacity
for a region of approximately 500,000 people. As a comparison, the district labour office in
Prerov (the third case, see below) alone works with 80 staff members. The transfer of new
competencies could of course lead to a rapid increase in the number of regional officials.
During the activities of the regional co-ordination committee a strategic planning process
was set up, supported by a private consultancy, prepared with 70 partners (e.g. state
administration, municipalities, chambers of commerce, NGOs). This seems to have stimulated
98
partnerships and improved co-ordination in joint efforts. The regional development plan
(RDP) was seen as a focus for directing minds and activities on the regional dimension of
economic development. In effect the production of the plan was a process of partnership
development in itself, which has then been taken on by the regional council. Some of the
key persons involved in the RCC are now active members of the political regional elite.
A partnership for strategic development
A partnership, the RCC, was set up in 2000 and tasked with the design of a strategic
development plan for the region. It agreed on four strategic objectives: i) improving the
competitiveness of the regional economy, ii) developing human resources, iii) improving
infrastructures (including communications and IT) and iv) fostering sustainable development.
Thirteen working groups of the RCC were then created to elaborate the plan. For example,
the group for human resources (mainly focused on training skills) was composed of
NGOs, mayors, chambers of commerce, chamber of agriculture and individuals.
The planning project stopped in the stage of putting forward operational goals. The
regional assembly, which inherited the process in 2001, is responsible for developing and
implementing concrete projects along the lines agreed, and to define indicators and methods
to monitor and evaluate the performances and results of the process.
NGOs: sceptical but prepared to take responsibilities
Regionalisation has had an impact on the development of NGOs in Vysocina. Because
NGOs have been thoroughly involved in the regional strategic planning process, they have
developed good co-operative relationships with other actors. NGOs have formed their own
regional umbrella organisations. A less tripartite culture than in Most and a greater
socio-economic diversity may have contributed to this.
The district reform affects the immediate financial needs of NGOs: the cutting of district
budgets, not (yet) replaced by regional budgets, has an important influence on their planning.
As a result of the present uncertainty and confusion of competencies, NGOs do not know
where to apply for funding.
The NGOs positively view the relationship being established with the new regional authority. However, they are concerned that regional politicians still do not understand the essence
of a dynamic civil society. They are preoccupied with the fact that the partnership concept
might be used in establishing legitimacy for the regional level. The NGOs seems to have
more intimate relations with the municipalities, although the same "we are elected"-culture
is present at this level.
Another problem lies within the representation of NGOs. Despite the fact that they set up
umbrella organisations, it remains a challenge to unite all NGOs. Of the 1,300 NGOs
operating in the region, only 70 have participated in a conference organised to elect NGO
representatives to participate in the strategic planning process.
The RDA: standing on the sidelines
As in the district of Most, the RDA in the district of Jihlava supports the development of
projects on a commercial basis, similar to private consultants. However, it lacks the experience
of the RDA in Most with the implementation of European funding, due to the different
99
characteristics of the region (less industrial restructuring). This has an important impact on
the role of the RDA in the region. Its relationship with other partners is less antagonistic in
Jihlava than in Most, but the RDA is also less involved in the design and implementation of
the regional development strategy.
The district labour office
The director of the district labour office in this area illustrates the impact of personality on
the quality of networking. He is the prototype of the proactive manager engaged in close
networking with NGOs. This confirms that dynamic leaders can, to some extent, compensate
for weaknesses in governance frameworks. Formal centralised or decentralised characteristics
of the administration are always moulded by the characteristics of the civil servants involved.
Conclusion
The creation of the new region has been met in Vysocina with enthusiasm, as shown by
a new generation of new politicians and public servants, some of them formerly active in
NGOs or in the RCC.
The strategic planning process initiated by the RCC in Vysocina was of a rather classic
type. Yet partnership is not only about planning methods. It is also about trust and
confidence, it brings people together, eager to support the construction of a renewed civil
society. This is the "public spirit" that could lead the region to create a new atmosphere,
bringing democracy closer to the public.
The follow-up of the strategic process, led by the new regional government, represents
an ambitious attempt to achieve this connection as it tries to combines representative with
participatory democracy, decentralisation with partnership. The new regions are elected but,
since they have no taxing power yet and properly speaking no budget, to achieve anything
they must establish effective communication channels below (to the local level) and above
(the national level), and the strategic planning they conduct must involve all relevant actors.
The present weaknesses of the region could be the strong points of this new level: building
up platforms in society, breaking up the government style into a new governance culture.
The case of Prerov
Prerov (region of Olomouc, in central Moravia) is an industrial city, dominated mostly by
the pharmaceutical and chemical industries. In addition to these sectors, the region has some
significant economic potential in business tourism. It also faces some problems, particularly the decline of agriculture. The Prerov case is situated at a micro-regional level: it concerns both the city and district of Prerov.
The concept of partnership
The concept of partnership in this case was used for:
- a more open culture of the municipal government (more information, consultation of citizens
in an urban civic commission, apparent openness for suggestions);
- involvement of actors in the elaboration of a strategic plan led by municipal authorities;
- public-public partnership (involving state departments, district offices and municipalities);
- improving dialogue between public authorities and NGOs at district level.
100
Modernising government at the municipal level
The city administration is on its way to modernisation: a more professional communication
culture, more open functioning of commissions, the design of a strategic plan for the city,
putting forward ten key priorities dominated by infrastructure issues: development of industrial
estates, transport, logistic centre, road infrastructure, housing availability, city promotion,
training facilities, development of the educational system, water supply, leisure supply.
Hence, the strategic process is dominated by the priorities of the municipality. In this context,
partnership is for an important part devoted to public-public co-operation, rather than with
enterprises, NGOs and voluntary associations.
Prerov, city and micro-region: some statistics
Population of the Prerov micro-region: 137,500 inhabitants (2000).
Agricultural lands: 68 per cent of the territory.
Negative migration ratio, unfavourable age structure.
Economic sectors: Industry: 32.5 per cent of employers, agriculture: 8.2 per cent; trade: 13.2
per cent; transport and telecommunications: 10.1 per cent (2000).
Unemployment: 14.4 per cent in 2001 (10 % in 1997).
Source: Ministry for Regional Development
A partnership led by NGOs
NGOs took the initiative to create a socio-economic platform in the district of Prerov.
Official members are: the city of Prerov, the district labour office, NGOs, chambers of
agriculture and commerce. The main goals are to improve communication and co-operation,
and promoting the interests of the district. The organisation is based on voluntary engagement.
In practice it depends mainly on the input of the main NGO figures. The organisation has
no staff of its own and has no implementation competencies.
Four cities quit the partnership recently. The engagement of the city of Prerov has become
crucial but its goal is unclear: there is some mistrust and scepticism. The dominance of
NGOs, the lack of implementation capacity and the strategic ambitions and programmes of
the city itself seem to be the main reasons for this. The district partnership is not focused
and there are no clear goals.
The role of the district labour office
One important participant is the district labour office, which in this region seems to have the
real potential to play a major role in the partnership. Eighty staff members work for the labour
office, 12 of them on the implementation of active labour market policy. The office benefits
from a significant degree of autonomy from the central level, with which it negotiates
quantitative targets. It then uses the budget allocated in a relatively free way. The
municipalities play a marginal role in the implementation of labour market policy. However,
the labour office searches for potential partners to help it implement policy in the best possible
way. The service has the capacity, the financial means and the formal legitimacy to do so.
Conclusion
This case demonstrated the potential of local government to strengthen communication
with citizens. A strong local government does not automatically lead to better partnerships.
101
The government puts forward its priorities and looks for partners to participate in the
implementation of those projects. It is also quite understandable that the most important partners
in this stage are other public authorities, which often pursue similar policy objectives.
The district case illustrates that partnership needs to build up confidence and trust. The
ambition of NGOs and sometimes their negative attitude towards public initiative undermines
the willingness of public authorities to participate in partnerships. The framework of the
partnerships should enable and even support public authorities to achieve their policy
objectives so that their engagement opens up possibilities for more local co-operation. This
mutual respect is a basic condition for effective partnerships (as shown in OECD, 2001) and
the Prerov case illustrates some problems concerning this point. It was difficult to make a
judgement on whether or not the fact that a NGO takes the lead is accepted in the present
situation. It could explain some resistance from the municipal administration.
PART III
PERSPECTIVES FOR PARTNERSHIPS
Partnerships: what is in the name?
Many people in the Czech Republic see a partnership as any new co-operative relationship:
formal consultation of citizens, dialogues engaging social partners in tripartite organisations,
projects of NGOs using public funds, improvement of intergovernmental co-operation. The
concept of partnership covers all these ways of working.
Although there is a difference between a local government opening up its communication
to citizens, two public administrations working closer together and the co-operation of public
and private actors in a re-training project, all these represent attempts to improve governance.
In promoting participation and co-operation and bringing together tools of public administration,
civil society and private actors, partnership is a tool to improve governance.
Of course improvements in governance can be marginal when consultation is purely formal,
when co-operation is led only by personal networks or when partnership is dominated by one
partner, potentially leading to biased priorities, as the first phase of the OECD Study on
Local Partnerships clearly showed (OECD, 2001). All these cases have been observed in the
Czech Republic, where partnerships are still at an early stage of implementation. Partnership
in the Czech Republic also often refers to mere contracting relationships between public
services and NGOs for the provision of specific services, with have unclear consequences for
the quality of governance since in these cases decision-making and strategic planning remain
fully in the hands of public authorities.
The concept of partnerships that emerge from the cases refers to the specific "co-operative
networks of autonomous organisations" based on a process of negotiating and bargaining,
building up a common interest, focused on specific operational goals and implementation of
projects based on the input of resources of the different partners.
Politics and partnerships: first things first?
The political and administrative restructuring of the country is a determinant for the
102
development of partnerships. It opens up new opportunities to improve governance (self-governing
regions, better local government, new regional planning system) but it also contains factors of
uncertainty (abolition of districts and the "administrative war", reduction of financial means
for NGOs, ambiguous relation between NUTS II and NUTS III regional levels).
From our perspective, the following priorities should be of major political concern in order
to create the stability that is necessary for improving governance through partnerships:
- a firm political statement on: decentralisation and core business of each administrative
level, decentralised fiscal responsibility, improving intergovernmental joint implementation,
a legal framework for partnerships;
- a mid-term perspective for the legal competencies of the new regions: decentralisation of
planning and development competencies for regional economic employment, SME,
spatial planning, education (life-long learning, professional skills, training of unemployed);
- a policy for local government: a framework for modernisation, a fiscal system based on
incentives to stimulate co-operation (or amalgamations), reinforcement of the leading role
of cities;
- an elaborated policy towards NGOs (see further on).
The search for the legitimacy of politics may hamper real partnerships. There is a tendency
to over-stress the primacy of politics and a reluctance to relinquish political control and
responsibility. Many examples of partnership have the official features of partnership, however
further investigation reveals that control is very much in the hands of the political authority
with very little co-ordination over priority-setting and sharing of responsibility. There is no
simple advice to solve this problem: changes of public culture need time. But incentives to
modernise government and a policy of decentralisation can reinforce those cultural changes.
Partnerships have specific aims and objectives and a lifespan to achieve them. They have
their pragmatic logic: why set up a partnership, what is the partnership going to do, how long
will it take, what is needed to manage partnerships, how communication will be organised,
how are results evaluated, what are the goals in the short and mid-term? This "management
agenda" is, in the cases examined, marginalised by the political agenda.
The NGOs: a complex world
The NGO concept covers a broad range of organisations. This notion creates unity of
purpose where very little exists. There are community organisations, voluntary organisations,
enterprises pursuing social goals, semi-commercial organisations, organisations with a very
localised sphere of action, organisations with national ambitions. All those types of
organisations have different expectations from partnership. The use made in the Czech
Republic of the general concept of NGO to represent this array of organisations covers up
realities and hampers clear discussions. It neglects the wide variety of types and relations
with public administration. Being more specific, linking types of organisations to specific
types of partnerships, can foster the search for more tailor-made techniques and strategies.
The world of the neo-corporatist tripartite organisations has its own history (especially in
their relations with trade unions) and is dominated by another culture and tradition than the
emerging world of the new civic organisations. Big organisations formerly supported by the
communist regime still receive important subsidies and defend their position while new organisations try to get official support for their work.
103
In western countries, NGOs often have close relationships with the public sector due to a
long history of private initiative and of public involvement of private organisations. Those
NGOs do not belong directly to the public administration but they sometimes fulfil public
tasks and are subsidised and controlled by the public administration. NGOs also often
participate in strategic planning exercises and collective decision-making in their fields of
action. Those relations are supported by close networks dominated by a culture of trust and
confidence that offers the basic conditions to handle conflicts, the interdependencies and the
respective roles.
In the Czech Republic, the involvement of NGOs in partnerships is merely about informing
and consultation, with some exceptions in the field of social and employment policy, where
they participate in implementation on a contractual or subsidised basis. The involvement of
NGOs is not always welcomed by other partners. NGOs represent their own views and not
those of the people they serve, and some of them are politicised. More generally there is a
general mistrust towards "going public", either in politics or in NGOs.
Mutual mistrust reflects the battle of subsidies, positions and official recognition, typical
for elitist conflicts. The representatives of NGOs and the public administration have in fact
a common problem: changing the attitude of citizens, building up a public forum and debate,
encouraging people to rebuild a new belief in politics and public involvement.
The process of regionalisation clearly offers new opportunities for NGOs: the regions are a new
platform for dialogue and for public debate. Thus, regionalisation is a strategic opportunity to
support the involvement of citizens and NGOs.
To make further progress government policies on NGOs should:
- provide general frameworks in central and regional legislation making it possible to
integrate NGOs in public policies (following the example of environmental policies);
- encourage self-regulation and public evaluation by legislation. (Evaluation mechanisms
currently being developed by the Ministry of Labour and Social Services in close co-operation
with NGOs may provide a good model for similar efforts elsewhere);
- decentralise funds to the regions and encourage regions, including through financial
means, to establish dialogue with NGOs.
One of the consequences of this is that the appointment of the representatives of NGOs
(elected by the NGOs themselves) in regional development structures should be the
responsibility of the regions. The regions should ensure that NGOs are well-represented in
their own strategic planning exercises and commissions.
The attempts to organise the NGOs in regional and national conferences can be useful to
support a more transparent national and regional policy and system of subsidies. Policy of
subsidies should be based on a more ring-fenced system targeting different types of
organisations and supported by different umbrella organisations to assist the sectors of the
complex NGO world.
We did not find examples of significant resources being directed toward capacity building
and community development. If NGOs are to be directly involved in strategic planning and
service delivery, this should be the absolute priority of regions and municipalities. Regions
and municipalities should encourage citizens to voice their concerns and propose initiatives,
even if this means that citizens become more critical to the way regions and municipalities
function. That civic attitude is the cornerstone and driving force of partnerships.
104
The impact of the Europe Union and regional planning
RMMCs and RCCs were active before the directly elected regional government was
installed (2001). They involved public administrations, politicians and civil society.
Although this representation was mainly formal and the establishment of those institutions
was a "top-down" initiative, this has been one of the main drivers for partnerships on the
level of the planning system. In the Vysocina region, for example, a process of strategic
planning was set up integrating a range of organisations in different policy fields. People
taking responsibilities in that process entered the new political level as public officials or
politicians. Among the impacts of this process are a greater cohesion among regional actors,
increasing pressure for bottom-up policies, better co-ordination and more consultation with
civil society. This example illustrates that bringing together different actors (even in formal
and top-down structures) can improve governance.
The European pre-adhesion funds, mainly for infrastructure and led by public-public
co-operation have played a central role in these developments. They have contributed to the
improvement of intergovernmental relations and to establishing the strategic planning
framework. However, the effect of these programmes on wider partnerships involving
NGOs, private and public sector in projects seems rather marginal.
Overall, a new type of administrative culture is fighting its way through bureaucratic traditions.
Progress has been made since an earlier evaluation carried out in 1999, referring to a lack
of co-ordination, a lack of a proper system of financial management, a lack of a suitable
system for co-financing the EU programmes, a lack of qualified people and lack of
high-quality projects (Blazek, 1999). There are now frameworks for consultation and planning.
The learning process has just started, and the various actors still have to learn their roles and
how to co-operate. There is an obvious lack of capacity, maybe in terms of personnel, but
surely of financial means. However, the entry of a new elite supports the modernisation.
The creation of regions is important in that perspective. It can speed up the modernisation
process.
The creation of a planning structure through legislation and administrative organisations
(e.g. the Ministry for Regional Development, cohesion regions, regional development
programmes) offers some stability and a common referential framework; it provides opportunities
to re-organise the system. Every country has to build up its own capacity to evaluate the
former system and introduce a new generation of regional planning systems. The Czech
Republic has yet to build up its capacity to evaluate the first generation of regional planning
and to prepare the following one.
The role of regional development agencies
Most regional development agencies in other countries are part of the interactive development
discussion. In many countries partnerships evolve in and through the structure of the RDAs.
In the Czech Republic the RDAs are dominated by a market-oriented attitude: it is our
conviction that this, for the moment and in this period, is not the best choice. This is a choice
more suited to a situation with a well-established culture of partnership and a satisfactory
level of economic development.
There is an apparent lack of expertise of local development and partnership in the Czech
public administration, at both regional and local level. The RDAs have a potential know-how
105
that could more directly benefit regions in need. A RDA network of specialists could well
provide the support needed in the design and implementation of projects in partnership.
However, their commercial attitude hinders the efficient use of their expertise by municipalities and regions. It surely hinders partnerships because partnership demands some public
energy and financial investment, especially in the stages of creation and development.
Looking to other actors from an exclusive commercial viewpoint means in fact neglecting
the real needs of new partnerships involving a broader range of actors. Sometimes the initial
cost is wasted, sometimes the investment leads to success, rarely however to quick commercial
profits. That is a risk that cannot be avoided. To become a real partner for local and regional
development, the RDAs should integrate in their mission the priorities established by
partnerships involving the public and private sector as well as a civil society. This would be
in line with the OECD Strategy to Improve Governance through Partnerships, which
recommends to make the objectives of the main partners consistent with the goals assigned
to partnerships (OECD, 2001). This may mean that RDAs should themselves become broader
partnership organisations, involving all these actors.
The regions and the reform of public administration
The general situation of the new regions can best be described as unstable and unclear: a
lot of uncertainty, a lack of basic legal instruments, the search for a balance with local
self-government especially in relations with the leaders of the bigger cities. We mentioned
that the regional battle (between districts, municipalities, ministries and regions) could harm
the effectiveness of public administration. The actual capacity of the regions (financial
resources and personnel), compared with regional structures in the western countries, is
extremely modest.
But there is more than doubt and scepticism. We also encountered enthusiasm: people with
a great belief that the region could make a difference. Some regional elite officials were
active in the regional planning processes and try to continue that spirit in the new political
structures. The region is organising the public debate about the priorities for the area. Other
actors are adapting their structure to the regional scale: chambers of commerce, trade unions
but also NGOs.
So regions can change the communication channels and have an influence on the structure
of social and political networks. Regions, as we stated earlier, are the result of societal
changes but they, in turn, can also influence society. Overall, the creation of the new regional
political level enhances the potential for good governance.
The state in the region: the district labour office
The district labour offices are accountable to the Ministry of Labour. The tension between
centralisation and decentralisation is present and can be a problem (for example, in the case
of a central-oriented attitude of the district director), but can also create new opportunities
for partnerships (due to relative autonomy in the use of financial means). Overall, the
organisation of the employment service at district level appears positive to partnership
development: there are substantial financial and personnel means; effectiveness and local
appropriateness are central priorities; there is a formal consultation structure with public and
private (potential) partners.
Moreover, the Czech labour administration provides a high degree of combination between
106
employment services and social policy. Clients are served by the same public service. While
problems in the application of the combination of social help and employment actions occur
(e.g. reduction of the social benefits after one year), many of them can be solved by adaptation
at district level of the central regulation and budgets.
On a second level of analysis, much depends on the quality of the district officer and the
public officials responsible for employment policy. That observation means that the degree
of partnership-oriented attitude could be part of the assessment qualities of new directors.
The current system of follow-up and evaluation encourages the district officials to achieve
projects, for instance in terms of target groups. Improvements in the degree of adaptation of
employment policies to local needs, and of co-operation with other partners, could also be
the subject of performance evaluation frameworks. This would encourage them to be more
responsive to other organisations as their personal evaluation would depend partly on the
success of cross-cutting activities. These characteristics of evaluation (in terms of governance
outcomes), would be positive to good governance and help make partnerships more effective, as recommended by the OECD study (OECD, 2001).
This prospect brings two crucial points: a need for a more strategic approach of employment
policy at the regional level, but also the need for the maintenance of an efficient implementation service. The first element could indeed be a point of criticism derived from the cases:
the approach of the employment services in the cases surveyed was mainly implementationoriented: following national targets and setting up programmes for target groups. A regional strategic or mid-term approach is often missing. Nevertheless, pursuing a strategic
approach always needs concrete input and experience from the field: thus, even if regions
become responsible for employment policy planning, there should be a close link with
the implementation level (labour offices).
Creating those links seems to us a good example of the most promising way of constructing
partnerships in the Czech Republic, combining the tools and core business of each public
actor, together with the expertise of private and community partners, and thus improving
governance of Czech society.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
BLAZEK, J. (1999),
"Local and Regional Development and Policy in the Czech Republic in the 1990s", in:
Hudak, V., H. Huitfeldt, E Meegan (eds), Regional Policy Goes East, The East-West
Institute, Prague, Czech Republic.
BLAZEK, J. (2000),
"Systems of Czech Local Government Finances as a Framework for Local
Development", draft research paper, Department of Social Geography and Regional
Development, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
BRIZOVA, M. AND MARYSKA, I. (2000),
"Dezentralisiering in der Tschechischen Republik - neuere Entwicklungen", draft
research paper.
DAVEY, K., (1996),
"The Czech and Slovak Republics" in: Local Government in Eastern Europe,
MacMillan: London, United Kingdom.
107
EUROPEAN UNION (2001),
"Enlargement: Helping Future Members Prepare for Community Regional Policy",
Inforegio, Panorama, no 4, Brussels, Belgium.
FRIC, P. ET AL. (2000),
"A Proposed Strategy for the Czech Third Sector, paper presented at the Donors Forum,
June 2000, Prague, Czech Republic.
GOVERNMENT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC (2000a),
"Regional Development Strategy of the Czech Republic", General Document, Ministry
for Regional Development, Prague, Czech Republic.
GOVERNMENT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC (2000b),
"Local Government Authorities in the Czech Republic", Ministry of Interior, Prague,
Czech Republic.
GOVERNMENT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC (2000c),
"Act no 548/2000 on Support to Regional Development", Prague, Czech Republic.
GOVERNMENT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC (2001a),
"Consequences of Public Administration Reform for Self-Governing Territorial Units
and District Authorities", informal note by the Ministry of Regional Development,
Prague, Czech Republic.
GOVERNMENT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC (2001b),
"Common Provisions of the Statutes of Regional Councils of Cohesion Regions",
Prague, Czech Republic.
HULL, C. and B. HJERN (1982),
"Helping Small Firms Grow: an Implementation Analysis of Small Firm Assistance
Structures", in European Journal of Political Research, no. 10, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
ILLNER, M. (1995),
"Regional Structures and Post-communist Transformation: the Case of the Czech
Republic", in: Faltan, L. (ed), Regions and Self-government European Integration,
Institute of Sociology, Bratislava, Slovakia.
OECD (1998),
Fostering Entrepreneurship, OECD Publications, Paris, France.
OECD (2001),
Local Partnerships for Better Governance, OECD Publications, Paris, France.
OECD (2002),
"Review on the Development of Rural Regions, Local Development Issues, Regional
and National Policy Making: Moravska Trebova-Jevicko Micro-region Territorial
Review", Official document, DT/TDPC/RUR(2002)9, Paris, France.
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MOST (2001),
"Transition to Decentralised Regional Decision-making, Most, Czech Republic.
108